withdraw_txn

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It explicitly states that transactions are unsigned and base64-encoded for signing, making clear that no on-chain mutation occurs. This is a key behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and includes the return format without excessive detail.

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 transaction builder with 4 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return format. It lacks edge case information (e.g., insufficient balance) but is sufficient for the tool's simplicity. Given the sibling context, it's clear when to use it.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter detail, though it clarifies that 'symbol' refers to supplied tokens, which is a slight enhancement over the schema's generic wording.

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 verb and resource: builds unsigned transactions to withdraw supplied tokens from a DorkFi lending market. It also specifies the output as base64-encoded transactions, distinguishing it from other transaction builders like deposit_txn or borrow_txn.

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 implies the appropriate use case: when a user wants to withdraw tokens previously supplied to a DorkFi market. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools and the verb 'withdraw' make the context clear. Missing exclusions like requiring an existing position prevent a 5.

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