withdraw

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as destructiveness, fees, or confirmation requirements. It does not warn that withdrawals are irreversible or describe side effects, leaving the agent unaware of risks.

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 brief (two sentences plus a parameter list) and front-loaded with the main action. The 'Args:' format is slightly verbose but still efficient. No superfluous content.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover return values and post-action behavior. It omits what to expect after withdrawal (e.g., confirmation ID, potential delays), requiring the agent to rely on other tools for status.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds basic parameter meanings (e.g., 'Coin to withdraw, e.g., USDT.'). However, explanations are terse and lack format constraints (e.g., amount precision, address validation), providing only marginal improvement over raw parameter names.

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 'Withdraw funds to an external address.' which identifies the core action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like 'cancel_withdrawal' or 'get_withdrawal_records', relying on the name for distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent is left without context on when withdrawal is appropriate.

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