get_withdrawal_methods

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'list', implying read-only, but omits any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'withdrawal method'. Very minimal 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?

The description is a single phrase, making it concise but under-specified. It is not verbose, but the brevity leads to missing critical information. It earns its place but does not suffice.

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?

Given the presence of sibling tools, 3 undocumented optional parameters, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, filtering behavior, or what constitutes a withdrawal method.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning parameters asset, aclass, and network have no descriptions. The description adds no information about these parameters, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states 'List available withdrawal methods', which clearly identifies the verb (List) and resource (withdrawal methods). However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like get_deposit_methods, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that it is for withdrawal methods only, nor does it provide context for when the optional parameters should be applied.

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