Prepare an order top-up

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

Annotations provide no safety hints beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive flags, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context by specifying that the transactions are 'unsigned' and that it prepares both 'approval' and 'addFunds' transactions, indicating this is a preparation step rather than an execution. It does not describe side effects or reversibility, but the 'unsigned' detail clarifies it does not modify the order directly.

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, concise sentence that efficiently states the core action and context. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description gives sufficient high-level context ('prepare unsigned transactions', 'add Base USDC to a live order') but lacks parameter-level detail and explicit guidance on the expected return value or any prerequisites. It is adequate but leaves gaps in parameter understanding and does not mention any constraints or edge cases.

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 for explaining parameters. It mentions 'Base USDC' and 'live order' but does not explicitly explain the 'amount' parameter (only implies it is the USDC amount) or the 'depositId' parameter at all. The description adds no direct meaning beyond what the parameter names suggest, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 tool's purpose: preparing unsigned approval and addFunds transactions to add Base USDC to a live order. It uses a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('top-up'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like peer_cash_prepare_withdraw, which focuses on withdrawals.

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 usage for adding funds to an existing order via the phrase 'to add Base USDC to a live order,' but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides clear context for its intended scenario, though it lacks exclusions or comparison with sibling tools like peer_cash_prepare.

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