spraay_compute_futures_deposit

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds the cost per call, which is valuable. However, it fails to disclose important behaviors like failure modes, authorization requirements, or interaction with existing account balances.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The description is front-loaded with purpose and cost, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose and cost adequately. It mentions opening an account, which is key context. Missing details on multi-deposit behavior and error handling, but overall sufficient for a focused deposit tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, albeit with minimal descriptions ('amount parameter'). The description adds no further semantic information beyond stating to provide typed arguments. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high coverage.

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 states the action ('Deposit USDC') and the purpose ('open a prepaid compute credit account'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like refund or balance. However, it does not explicitly differentiate among the compute futures siblings.

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 provides a cost hint ($0.01 per call) which helps in usage decisions, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The agent must infer context from the tool's name and siblings.

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