List Deposits

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false). The description adds minimal context about filtering options but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'next' parameter), rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations cover.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and filtering capabilities. Every word serves a clear function, and the information is front-loaded with no wasted verbiage or redundant phrasing.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations covering safety and behavior, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource type and filtering options, though it could better address pagination behavior and result format to fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description mentions filtering by transaction hash, token, or token address, which aligns with three parameters but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List deposit transactions') and resource ('deposit transactions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_list_actions' or 'dual_list_objects' beyond specifying the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other list tools or when not to use it, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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