List deposits that credited your balance, newest first, with amount, network, transaction hash, and sender; filter by network and paginate results.
List deposits that have credited your balance, newest first, with amount, network, transaction hash and sender.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | No | Only this network | |
| pageSize | No | Results per page (default 20) | |
| pageToken | No | next_page_token from the previous page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses sort order ('newest first') and the returned fields, but says nothing about permissions, pagination behavior, or whether results are user- or account-scoped.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, and the ordering and payload hints are packed in without waste. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description valuably enumerates the returned fields and ordering, which an agent would otherwise have to guess. It is nearly complete for a simple read-only list; only pagination semantics and scope behavior are left implicit.
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 network, pageSize, and pageToken are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'network' via the returned fields and adds no filter syntax or enum context beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus resource (deposits crediting the balance) with the scope qualifier 'credited' that separates it from sibling list_pending_balance_deposits. An agent can tell what it returns and how it differs from pending-deposit and get_balance tools without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied: 'credited your balance' and 'newest first' suggest a historical, settled-deposit listing as opposed to the pending variant, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no sibling is named. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.