withdraw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that paper mode only records and debits the paper balance with status PAPER_RECORDED, that live mode is policy-restricted to the owner's pre-registered wallet, and that the tool never auto-executes. The server-side read-back recording is a non-obvious behavioral detail that adds genuine value.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the hard approval requirement, then mode-specific behavior. Sentences are dense but each carries distinct information (approval gate, paper status, live policy, no auto-execution) with no filler.

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 high-stakes, annotation-free mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: approval flow, mode-dependent effects, result status, and execution guarantees. It omits return-shape details and the semantics of several required identifiers, keeping it from a 5.

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 43%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it explains that confirmed=true is only valid after confirming amount + destination, and reinforces destination read-back semantics already hinted in the schema. However, chain, symbol, token_address, and trader_id have no documented meaning in either the schema or the description, leaving over half the required parameters semantically bare.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Withdraw to an external wallet.' An agent immediately knows this moves funds out to an external address, which is distinct from the funding/settlement siblings (provision_wallet, paper_faucet, swap_execute). It stops short of naming a sibling it must not be confused with, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('ALWAYS requires explicit per-action approval') and the exact condition for setting confirmed=true (after reading amount AND destination back and getting a yes). It also distinguishes paper vs live mode behavior. It does not name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls just 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.