Ripio deposit accounts (CVU)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by mentioning the rules to relay before transfers, but it does not detail what those rules are or what the returned structure contains.

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 two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the primary purpose and then cleanly distinguishes the alternative tool for crypto deposits.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and clear sibling differentiation, the description covers all essential context: what the tool returns, the relevant regions, the transfer-rule caveat, and the alternative for crypto deposits. Nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's output rather than inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: the tool returns the account's Ripio bank-deposit accounts for fiat, including CVU and alias in Argentina and PIX in Brazil. It also differentiates from the crypto deposit sibling by explicitly saying crypto deposits use ripio_get_deposit_address instead.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use this tool: for fiat bank-deposit accounts, and explicitly routes crypto deposits to ripio_get_deposit_address. It also implies this should be used before transfers, since it includes the rules to relay.

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