veil_deposit_statusCheck the status of one queued Veil deposit using its pool and nonce, defaulting owner to your first approved WalletChan account.
Check one queued Veil deposit by pool and nonce. Owner defaults to the first approved WalletChan account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool | Yes | ||
| nonce | Yes | ||
| owner | No | Owner address. Defaults to first approved WalletChan account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the meaningful default-owner behavior ('first approved WalletChan account'), but says nothing about what statuses can be returned, required auth, or whether checking is idempotent/side-effect-free.
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?
Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted prose. Efficient, though extremely terse for the behavioral gaps it leaves open.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context, yet it omits the shape/meaning of a 'status' result and any error conditions. For a status-check tool this leaves meaningful gaps.
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 only 33%: 'pool' and 'nonce' have no schema descriptions, and the description merely restates that the lookup is 'by pool and nonce' without explaining nonce format or pool semantics. Only 'owner' is documented, and that documentation lives in the schema itself, so the description adds little.
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?
States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('queued Veil deposit'), scoped to a single deposit identified by pool and nonce. It is distinguishable from siblings like veil_status and veil_wait_for_deposit, though it does not explicitly name what those do differently.
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 word 'queued' implies this is for pending/in-flight deposits, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., veil_wait_for_deposit for blocking). The agent must infer the routing itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.