request-withdrawal

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a write operation ('request'), but omits important traits like whether it's asynchronous, auth requirements, fee implications, or error cases.

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?

Single sentence with no extraneous content. It is concise but effectively communicates the core purpose. Could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating parameters), but not overly verbose.

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 financial mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, confirmation steps, or potential state changes, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%: amount and address have clear descriptions. The tool's description adds no extra semantics beyond 'from your wallet to an external address', which aligns with the address parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: requesting a crypto withdrawal from wallet to external address. It uses a specific verb ('Request') and resource ('withdrawal'), and is distinct from sibling tools like get-wallet-transactions (read-only) and get-wallet-usage.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for different types of transfers), nor does it state prerequisites or when not to use it.

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