withdraw_txn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that the tool only builds unsigned transactions and returns base64-encoded output 'for signing.' This tells the agent the tool does not submit or execute the transaction. It does not cover prerequisites or failure modes, but the unsigned-transaction framing is a meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs in the action, resource, output format, and purpose. No filler, no repetition, and 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?

The tool is simple: four flat required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description plus schema cover what the agent needs to call it correctly, including the base64-encoded unsigned-transaction return. It doesn't explain the full signing/submission flow, but 'for signing' is adequate for an agent to understand the next step.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters (chain, symbol, amount, sender). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') plus a clear resource ('unsigned transactions to withdraw supplied tokens from a DorkFi lending market') and the return format. It distinguishes this tool from sibling txn builders like deposit_txn, borrow_txn, and repay_txn by naming the withdraw action explicitly.

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 provides clear context: it is for withdrawing supplied tokens from a DorkFi market, which signals when to use it over the deposit/borrow/repay/liquidate siblings. It does not name alternatives or explicit exclusions, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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