prepare_eigenlayer_deposit

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the detail about including an approve step, which is useful but does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like state changes or prerequisites. It does not contradict annotations.

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, consisting of two sentences that convey the essential purpose and a key behavioral detail (approve step). No redundant information.

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 complexity of an EigenLayer deposit with an approve step and five parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain what happens to the unsigned transaction, how to send it, or any return value. However, within the suite of 'prepare' tools, this level of completeness may be standard.

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 40%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions in the schema. For a low-coverage scenario, the description should compensate but fails to provide additional context for parameters like 'wallet', 'strategy', or 'token'.

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 ('Build an unsigned EigenLayer StrategyManager.depositIntoStrategy transaction'), specifying the protocol and function. It also mentions the inclusion of an ERC-20 approve step, adding crucial context. This differentiates it from other 'prepare_*' siblings.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It implies usage for EigenLayer deposits but lacks guidance on when not to use it or what other tools might be more appropriate.

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