withdraw

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the disabled-by-default state, the required config flag and permission, and a risk warning. However, it omits crucial details like irreversibility of withdrawals and potential failure modes, which would be expected for a high-risk financial operation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and then efficiently presents activation and risk context in a few short sentences. Every sentence contributes critical information without redundant elaboration.

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 covers activation context and risk, which is essential, but fails to describe what happens after a withdrawal is submitted (e.g., response format, transaction confirmation, or irreversibility). Given the absence of an output schema and the high stakes, this is a notable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It adds only a hint that the address is external, but does not explain coin type, amount units, or the optional network parameter. This leaves substantial ambiguity for the four parameters.

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 verb 'Retira fondos' (withdraw funds) and the resource 'direccion externa' (external address), distinguishing this from trading and account tools among siblings. It also uniquely identifies the operation as a withdrawal, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit activation prerequisites ('DESACTIVADO por defecto', 'ENABLE_WITHDRAWALS=true', API key permission) and a risk warning, effectively telling the agent when the tool can and should be used. This goes beyond typical usage guidance by specifying the condition under which it is disabled.

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