deposit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a credit operation tied to an on-chain transfer, including network (Base) and destination (ClawPage wallet). It does not mention error handling or idempotency, but provides sufficient behavioral clarity for a simple 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by concise workflow instructions. No redundant words or filler.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential workflow and expected input. It could mention potential failure modes or idempotency, but is fairly complete for a 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the workflow context for tx_hash (the transfer to ClawPage wallet) and reinforces the meaning of both parameters, going slightly beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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: crediting a prepaid USDC balance via an on-chain transaction. It names the specific resource (prepaid USDC balance) and the action (credit), and distinguishes itself from siblings like add_wallet by focusing on balance crediting rather than wallet management.

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 explicit prerequisites and workflow: send USDC on Base to the ClawPage wallet, then submit the tx hash. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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