Review withdrawal history for fiat (EUR) and crypto, with optional symbol filtering.
Withdrawal history — fiat (EUR) and crypto. Optionally filter by symbol.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_withdrawals"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the resource scope and optional filter, but omits details such as response format, pagination, whether pending/completed withdrawals are included, or any access requirements. This is a minimal disclosure for a getter 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 short, front-loaded clauses: 'Withdrawal history' first, then scope and filter. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate for selection and invocation but still leaves gaps about the returned data structure and any caveats. An agent would know what the tool does but not exactly what to expect in the response.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'Optionally filter by symbol' explains the sole parameter's purpose and optionality, and the mention of 'fiat (EUR) and crypto' hints at acceptable symbol types. It lacks examples or validation details, but adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
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: 'Withdrawal history' with scope 'fiat (EUR) and crypto' and an optional filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_deposits and get_transactions by specifying the exact resource (withdrawals) and its subtypes.
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 when to use the tool: when needing withdrawal history, covering both fiat and crypto. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_deposits or get_transactions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.