Prepare an order top-up

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

Annotations indicate the operation is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds value by disclosing that the transactions are 'unsigned', meaning they do not execute immediately and likely require a later signing/submission step. This is beyond what annotations convey. However, it does not mention potential side effects of repeated calls (given idempotentHint=false) or any prerequisites beyond 'live order'.

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, information-dense sentence. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant phrasing. Every clause contributes to understanding 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?

The tool prepares two transaction types but the description does not explain what happens after preparation (e.g., how the unsigned transactions are used, whether they need to be signed and submitted). There is no output schema to clarify the return value, and parameter explanations are absent. The 'live order' prerequisite is mentioned but not elaborated, making the description incomplete for an agent to know the full workflow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters (amount and depositId). It mentions 'Base USDC' but does not connect this to the amount parameter, nor does it explain what depositId refers to. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the lack of explicit semantics for units or the deposit identifier leaves ambiguity.

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 specifies a clear action: 'Prepare unsigned approval and addFunds transactions to add Base USDC to a live order.' It identifies the verb (prepare), the resource (order top-up), and the specific asset (Base USDC), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like peer_cash_prepare_withdraw and peer_cash_prepare_access_policy.

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 implies when to use the tool: when adding Base USDC to an existing live order. It clearly distinguishes from the withdraw and access policy siblings, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. Thus, it provides clear context without formal 'when-not-to' guidance.

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