Return an EIP-5792 batch the user signs to withdraw funds from their CTRL vault back to their wallet. The agent never signs. token defaults to ETH; pass WETH or a 0x token address for other assets; omit amount to withdraw the full balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | 'ETH' (default), 'WETH', or a 0x token address. | |
| amount | No | Decimal amount, e.g. '0.05'. Omit for full balance. | |
| wallet | Yes | Vault owner address (0x…). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'agent never signs' and 'return an EIP-5792 batch', but does not explain that the user must sign to execute the transfer, potential side effects, or required permissions. This is adequate but not rich.
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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and a behavioral trait, second covers parameter defaults. Each sentence contributes meaning.
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 output schema, description should clarify return value format. It explains what the tool does and parameter defaults, but omits details about the batch content or error scenarios. Acceptable for a simple tool but leaves 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 has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating token defaults to ETH and advising to omit amount for full balance, going beyond schema descriptions.
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 returns a batch to withdraw funds from CTRL vault to wallet, using specific verb 'withdraw' and resources (CTRL vault, wallet). It distinguishes from siblings like ctrl_create_workflow and ctrl_activate by focusing on fund movement.
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 defaults for token (ETH) and amount (full balance if omitted), and clarifies agent involvement ('agent never signs'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to siblings, but the context of sibling names (e.g., ctrl_activate) implies this is for withdrawals only.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: vault activation, workflow creation, manual firing, catalog retrieval, log reading, and vault status. No two tools have overlapping responsibilities.
All tools follow a consistent 'ctrl_verb' pattern (e.g., ctrl_activate, ctrl_create_workflow), making it easy to infer functionality from the name.
6 tools cover the essential operations for a workflow automation server without being excessive or sparse. The scope is well-defined.
The set covers core workflows (create, activate, trigger, monitor) but lacks explicit update/delete for workflows or vaults. This is a minor gap that can be worked around.