Ripio deposit address

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds specific behavior: it returns no address and lists receiving networks when network is absent/ambiguous, and it never creates an address. It also mentions relaying warnings. This is valuable context beyond annotations, though it could elaborate on error handling for invalid assets.

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 dense sentence that packs all key points: purpose, memo/tag, warnings, network ambiguity behavior, and the Ripio Trade distinction. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficient, though slightly long and could be split for readability. No redundant fluff.

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 has an output schema (present in context signals), so return values are covered there. The description covers the main behaviors: address retrieval, memo/tag when needed, warnings, network ambiguity resolution, and the distinction from Ripio Trade. It is complete for a tool with only two parameters and simple output, though error cases for invalid asset are not mentioned.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds nuance: asset is a ticker with examples (USDT, BTC, AAPLx) and network is flexible (code, name, token standard). It also clarifies that network is optional and the behavior when omitted, which is not fully explicit in the schema. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: to fetch a crypto deposit address for an asset on a network, including memo/tag and warnings. It differentiates from Ripio Trade and notes it never creates an address, distinguishing it from potential write operations. The verb 'get' and resource 'deposit address' are explicit, and the behavior on missing/ambiguous network is specified.

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 mentions that Ripio Trade uses different addresses, which implies this tool is for the Ripio app (Wallet) only. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings like ripio_get_deposit_accounts or ripio_verify_deposit_address, nor does it state when to use this tool over alternatives. The behavior on missing network could hint at usage, but the guidance is not fully explicit.

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