withdraw

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks any behavioral details such as fees, processing time, reversibility, or whether it creates a pending withdrawal. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about side effects.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it less useful than it could be.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what happens after a withdrawal is submitted (e.g., returns an ID or status). It fails to do so, leaving the agent without post-invocation expectations.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficiently self-explanatory.

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 'Submit a withdrawal,' which is a verb+resource pairing. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'wallet_transfer' or 'cancel_withdrawal,' and it fails to specify whether this refers to crypto/fiat or internal/external withdrawals.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'wallet_transfer' instead). No prerequisites or context for its invocation are provided.

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