Get withdrawal statuses
Returns the status of withdrawals for the authenticated user. If withdrawal_id is provided, returns a single withdrawal. If omitted, returns all withdrawals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth_token | No | Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header. | |
| withdrawal_id | No | Get a specific withdrawal by ID. If omitted, returns all withdrawals. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "properties": {
- "withdrawal": {
- "description": "A withdrawal status record.",
- "properties": {
- "address": {
- "description": "The wallet address the withdrawal is sent to",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "amount": {
- "type": [
- "number",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "asset": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "id": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "network": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "state": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "timestamp": {
- "type": [
- "number",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "timestamp_readable": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "tx_hash": {
- "description": "On-chain transaction hash, present once the withdrawal is processed",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "tx_url": {
- "description": "Block explorer URL for the transaction, present when tx_hash exists",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- }
- },
- "type": [
- "object",
- "null"
- ]
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "properties": {
- "withdrawals": {
- "items": {
- "description": "A withdrawal status record.",
- "properties": {
- "address": {
- "description": "The wallet address the withdrawal is sent to",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "amount": {
- "type": [
- "number",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "asset": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "id": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "network": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "state": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "timestamp": {
- "type": [
- "number",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "timestamp_readable": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "tx_hash": {
- "description": "On-chain transaction hash, present once the withdrawal is processed",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "tx_url": {
- "description": "Block explorer URL for the transaction, present when tx_hash exists",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- }
- },
- "type": [
- "object",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "type": [
- "array",
- "null"
- ]
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- }
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-only operation and clarifies the single-vs-all behavior, which is helpful. However, it does not describe response shape, ordering, error behavior, or authorization details beyond 'authenticated user', leaving some behavioral 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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first line, followed by two short sentences that fully explain the optional parameter behavior. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition beyond what is necessary for clarity.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers essential operational details: what resource is accessed, whose data is returned, and how the optional parameter changes the result. The main gap is the lack of information about the returned data structure, but given the tool's low complexity, the description is reasonably complete.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the withdrawal_id behavior ('If omitted, returns all withdrawals') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema property description already states. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: getting withdrawal statuses. It distinguishes itself from sibling status tools (get_payment_status, get_kyc_status, get_signup_status) by naming the specific resource (withdrawals) and the authenticated-user scope. The optional ID behavior is also clearly stated, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you need withdrawal statuses for the authenticated user. It explains the conditional behavior of providing or omitting withdrawal_id, which functions as usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.