list_pending_balance_depositsLists on-chain deposits held before balance credit, showing whether each is pending due to a non-whitelisted sender or compliance review.
List deposits seen on-chain but held before crediting your balance, with the reason: the sender is not a whitelisted wallet, or compliance review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain context those annotations cannot convey: deposits are on-chain but held, and holds arise from non-whitelisted senders or compliance review. It omits pagination/ordering behavior, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and spends its remaining words on the one thing that matters — why a deposit is held. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.
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 tool with rich annotations, the description supplies the essential concept (held-not-credited) and the two hold reasons. With no output schema present, a brief hint about what each returned pending deposit includes would have closed the last gap.
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 takes zero parameters and the schema confirms an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level gaps exist.
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 a clearly scoped resource (deposits seen on-chain but held before crediting), and it defines what 'pending' means rather than restating the name. It implicitly separates itself from the balance/activity siblings, but never names them, so the only gap is explicit sibling differentiation.
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 by the domain framing — an agent would call this to investigate held deposits — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to a sibling such as list_balance_activity for already-credited deposits. Adequate but inference is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.