kraken_get_deposit_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'checks' status, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any limitations such as how recent the transfers are, whether it returns all transfers or only the latest, or whether authentication or a previously created deposit address is required. The description adds minimal behavior beyond what the name already suggests, so it's underspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Check the status') and includes the key filtering attribute ('for an asset'). There is no redundancy or filler; it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one required param), has an output schema, and is read-only in nature, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks contextual details such as what status values are returned (e.g., pending, complete, failed) and the temporal scope of 'recent'. Given the minimal risk profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description could be more informative about the nature of the output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (asset and method), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description mentions 'for an asset' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of recent deposit transfers for an asset'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like kraken_get_deposit_methods (which returns deposit method options) and kraken_get_withdrawal_status (which deals with withdrawals). The 'for an asset' scope aligns with the required 'asset' parameter, and 'recent' conveys a temporal filter.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool ('when you need to check deposit status'), but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusionary conditions. It doesn't mention that this is for deposits rather than withdrawals (though the word 'deposit' makes it obvious) or any prerequisites, such as having a deposit method configured. The context is clear enough but lacks explicit 'use when' or 'don't use for' guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.