Derive MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions authentication requirement and basic return data (transaction hashes and statuses). Missing critical behavioral information: pagination behavior (implied by page parameters but not explained), rate limits, error conditions, whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), or what format/scope the history covers beyond the mentioned fields.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds the authentication requirement. No wasted words or redundant information. Could be slightly improved by front-loading authentication requirement if critical, but overall efficient.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information about return format, pagination behavior, error handling, rate limits, and how it differs from similar history tools. The authentication mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context needed for proper tool invocation.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., timestamp filtering logic) or provide usage examples. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value beyond the structured schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('withdrawal history'), including key data elements ('transaction hashes and statuses'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_deposit_history' by focusing on withdrawals, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other history tools beyond the withdrawal scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions authentication requirement, it doesn't explain when withdrawal history is needed compared to other history tools (deposit, funding, trade) or how it relates to account/balance tools. No explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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