Адрес криптовалютного пополнения

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool only 'requests details' (non-mutating operation), which is good, but it doesn't clarify if any state changes occur, if there are prerequisites (e.g., existing wallet balance), or what happens if wrong blockchain is provided. The brevity leaves ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. No fluff. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without harming conciseness.

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 simple read-like tool with no output schema island, the description is minimal. It doesn't cover what the request returns, whether it requires authentication, or any constraints on the parameters (e.g., supported currencies beyond USDT). Given the presence of many sibling wallet tools, this description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% – both parameters have descriptions that clarify their meaning (currency is 'Валюта, обычно USDT', blockchainType is 'Сеть, обычно Tron'). The description adds no extra parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Запрашивает реквизиты для пополнения кошелька в криптовалюте' – clear verb and resource (requests details for crypto wallet top-up), but it is somewhat generic and doesn't distinguish from other wallet deposit methods like wata_wallet_banks or wata_wallet_withdrawal_methods. It could be clearer about it being crypto-specific.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name contains 'crypto_deposit' which is self-explanatory, but nothing in the description states when to use it instead of other wallet deposit tools or how it fits into a workflow.

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