withdraw_cdp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It excellently discloses the critical pattern that this 'builds an unsigned transaction (CBOR hex) for client-side signing' rather than executing immediately. However, it omits side effects (CDP state modification), validation constraints (minimum collateral ratios), or reversibility.

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 zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action ('Withdraw collateral from a CDP') followed immediately by essential behavioral context ('builds an unsigned transaction...'). Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description appropriately identifies the return format (CBOR hex) and signing requirement. Could be improved by noting the CDP state change (collateral reduction) and any protocol-specific constraints, but covers the critical execution pattern.

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 high at 80% with clear descriptions for address, cdpTxHash, cdpOutputIndex, and amount. The description adds minimal semantic detail beyond the schema (e.g., doesn't clarify 'asset' enum relationship to collateral type), but the schema does the heavy lifting sufficiently.

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?

Description provides a specific verb ('Withdraw') + resource ('collateral from a CDP') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like deposit_cdp, close_cdp, or liquidate_cdp. The scope is precisely defined.

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?

While the action is clear, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over close_cdp (which also removes collateral but closes the position) or redeem_cdp. Usage is implied by the verb but not contextualized against alternatives.

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