fluid_build_lending_withdraw_native

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

The description discloses that the tool builds an 'unsigned transaction', which is important behavioral context (it does not send or execute transactions). However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose other behaviors like prerequisites (e.g., whether the owner needs to have approved the fToken shares) or what the returned transaction object contains. It provides minimal but non-misleading information.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Build' and the key object 'unsigned transaction'. It contains no fluff or redundant content, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 description gives a basic understanding of the tool's purpose but omits crucial context given there is no output schema and no annotations. It does not state what the returned unsigned transaction looks like, what parameters are optional (e.g., rpc_url), or any preconditions (like having fToken shares). For a simple builder tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral and return-value 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?

Schema description coverage is 83%, with only 'rpc_url' lacking a description, so the schema already explains most parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'amount' in wei is already described). Therefore, the description does not compensate or add value beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action: 'Build an unsigned transaction to withdraw native ETH from a Fluid fToken lending pool.' The verb 'Build' and resource 'unsigned transaction' are specific, and the term 'native ETH' distinguishes it from siblings like 'fluid_build_lending_withdraw' which likely handles non-native tokens. This is a clear, purpose-driven statement.

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 usage for native ETH withdrawals, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'fluid_build_lending_withdraw' or 'fluid_build_lending_deposit_native'. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, so the usage guidance is only implied through the tool name and mention of 'native ETH'.

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