nanopay_withdraw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, prerequisites, fees, or failure conditions—important gaps for a withdrawal 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 a single concise sentence that directly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 one-parameter withdrawal tool, the description covers the core action but lacks details about potential requirements (e.g., active channel, sufficient balance) or its relationship to sibling tools. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The schema has one required 'amount' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not elaborate on its units, format, minimums, or constraints. The agent must infer semantics solely from the parameter name and the tool's implicit context.

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), the asset (USDC), the source (nanopayment Gateway), and the destination (agent's main wallet). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like transfer or nanopay_deposit.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool—when withdrawing USDC from the gateway to the main wallet—but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions. It implies usage rather than stating 'use this instead of X'.

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