Deposit pool liquidity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Deposit into lending pool' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a financial transaction 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?

The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and target. While it's under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured.

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 financial transaction tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond the basic verb, provides no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, and no differentiation from similar tools in the ecosystem.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'amount' represents (currency, units, format) or what 'stakeMToken' means. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema, leaving both parameters completely unexplained.

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 ('lending pool'), which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'strato.lending.supply-collateral' or 'strato.cdp.deposit', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific deposit tool versus others in the same domain.

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 deposit-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'strato.lending.supply-collateral', 'strato.cdp.deposit', 'strato.swap.add-liquidity'), there's no indication of what makes this deposit operation unique or when it's appropriate versus other deposit mechanisms.

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