Withdraw Earnings

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the withdrawal is processed on-chain and may take a few minutes, which is useful. However, it omits potential fees, reversibility, failure handling, or confirmation details. The disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives minimum and timing. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the key action. Perfectly structured for quick parsing.

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 simple withdrawal tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what, how much, and processing time. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly. However, it could mention any post-withdrawal balance changes or confirmation responses, but those are implied or covered by other tools like get_balance.

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?

Only one parameter 'amount' exists, and the schema already describes it as a number with exclusiveMinimum 0. The description adds the minimum of 100 TRX, which is helpful. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3; the description adds marginal value by restating the minimum but does not explain other aspects like precision or format.

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 TRX from your account balance to your wallet.' The verb 'withdraw' combined with resource 'earnings' and currency 'TRX' is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'buy_energy' or 'execute_swap' by focusing on withdrawal.

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 mentions the minimum withdrawal amount (100 TRX) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., sufficient balance, registered wallet) or when not to use it. The usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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