deposit_to_gateway

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that this is the only on-chain step, that it costs gas, that it should happen once, that empty balances cause payment refusal, and what the return values are. This is far beyond a bare 'deposit' statement.

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 efficiently structured: clear purpose paragraph, workflow guidance, prerequisite, and a returns summary. Every sentence adds useful information and nothing feels like filler or tautology.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the workflow position, gas implications, the private key requirement, parameter nuances, and the exact return fields including units. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the schema already documents amount, rpc_url, and at_least with units and defaults. The description reinforces the decimal-string format and USDC smallest-unit convention, but mostly repeats what the schema already provides. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Deposit USDC into Circle Gateway on Arc', and immediately states the downstream purpose (paying for proofs via nanopayments). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like gateway_balance and generate_proof, which serve different steps in the workflow.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Do this ONCE, not per proof' and explains why, including gas cost and refusal of payments against an empty balance. It also notes the PAYMENT_PRIVATE_KEY requirement. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the situational guidance is concrete enough to route an agent correctly.

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