Withdraw Asset From An EVM Vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and chain scope, omitting critical details such as whether this is an on-chain transaction, permissions required, side effects, reversibility, or execution status. This is a significant transparency gap for a withdrawal tool.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and efficiently lists the chain scope. While it could be considered slightly vague, it contains no unnecessary filler, earning a high score for structure.

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?

The description is incomplete for a multi-parameter withdrawal tool. It does not explain the relationship between amountUsd and amountNative, the purpose of requestId, or any prerequisites or failure behavior. With no output schema and sparse annotations, this leaves the agent under-informed about edge cases and execution details.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents each parameter, so the description does not need to compensate, but it also contributes nothing extra.

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 action (withdraw) and the resource (vault), and explicitly scopes it to Ethereum/EVM chains with a list of supported networks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting Solana or Sui, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 by specifying the supported EVM chains, which implies when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use solana-withdraw-from-vault for Solana'), so it falls short of a fully explicit guideline.

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