withdraw_funds

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 mentions confirmation behavior but does not disclose the irreversible nature of on-chain withdrawals, potential fees, or what happens after execution. This is a significant gap for a financial mutation tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is efficient and minimally worded.

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 relatively simple, but this is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the essential operation but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or blockchain specifics. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 67%, with amountUsdc and toAddress defined, but agentId lacks any schema description. The description adds the decimal string format for amount, but this is also present in the schema. It does not fully compensate for the undocumented agentId.

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 tool's function: 'Withdraw USDC from the agent wallet to an external address.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates it from sibling tools like withdraw_bid or get_wallet.

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 for use (withdrawing USDC) and adds an important usage note about confirming with the user in interactive contexts. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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