q402_yield_deposit

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral load. It clearly discloses that the tool 'MOVES FUNDS' and is a write operation, explains the sandbox-by-default behavior requiring both a live key and Q402_ENABLE_REAL_PAYMENTS=1, details the retry-safety semantics around status='uncertain' and idempotencyKey, and mentions server-managed signing and gas sponsorship. This is exemplary transparency for a financial mutation tool.

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?

Although the description is long, it is tightly structured with clear section headers (REQUIRES CONFIRMATION, SANDBOX BY DEFAULT, RETRY SAFETY) and every sentence delivers critical operational information. The front-loaded purpose statement and step-by-step usage guidance make it efficient despite its length.

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 tool's complexity (8 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all necessary context: authentication, chain-specific constraints, confirmation flow, sandbox mode, retry safety, and sequencing with related tools. It even addresses failure semantics (status='uncertain') and the prevent-double-spend behavior. No significant gaps remain.

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 documents all 8 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema by explaining the confirm parameter's two-phase semantics ('Call it FIRST without confirm to get a one-line preview... THEN re-call with confirm:true') and by elaborating idempotencyKey's retry behavior (re-calling with the echoed key 'replays the original result'). These additions justify a score above baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Supplies the Agent Wallet's stablecoin (USDC / USDT) into Q402 Yield's curated lending market for the chosen chain so it starts earning supply APY.' This uses a specific verb ('supplies') and resource ('Q402 Yield's curated lending market'), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like q402_yield_withdraw and q402_yield_reserves.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use q402_yield_reserves first to show available markets + APY, and q402_yield_positions afterward to confirm the supplied balance.' It also explains the two-phase confirmation flow (call without confirm first, then with confirm) and notes chain limitations ('Other chains are not yet available'). This goes beyond mere context to give a complete usage workflow.

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