CDP deposit collateral

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'deposit' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens on failure, or what the expected response looks like. For a financial transaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core action and target with zero wasted words. Every element ('deposit', 'collateral', 'into a vault') contributes essential information about the tool's purpose.

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 this is a financial transaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 undocumented parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address the mutation nature, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values that would be essential for safe and effective use of this 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description provides no additional information about what 'asset' and 'amount' represent, their expected formats, units, or constraints. For a 2-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for this documentation gap.

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 action ('deposit') and target ('collateral into a vault'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'strato.cdp.withdraw' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deposit-related tools like 'strato.lending.deposit-liquidity' or 'strato.lending.supply-collateral'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple CDP and lending-related deposit tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'strato.lending.deposit-liquidity', 'strato.lending.supply-collateral'), there's no indication of when this specific collateral deposit operation is appropriate versus those other options.

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