Withdraw sBTC collateral from Zest on a Pillar smart wallet using an agent-signed transaction, with gas sponsored by the backend and no browser required.
Withdraw sBTC collateral from Zest on the Pillar smart wallet. Agent-signed, no browser needed. Backend sponsors gas.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sbtcAmount | Yes | sBTC amount in sats to withdraw |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description usefully discloses that the call is agent-signed, requires no browser, and has gas sponsored by the backend — real behavioral value. It stops short of mutation consequences: no mention of wallet-unlock/auth requirements, what happens if sbtcAmount exceeds the collateral position, or that the withdrawal triggers an on-chain transaction.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then operating model, then a pointer. The trailing earning_opportunities tip is only marginally relevant to a withdrawal action but is cheap.
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 value-moving DeFi mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operating model but omits preconditions, failure modes, and any hint of what the call returns (tx hash, confirmation status). Adequate, not complete.
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 100% (sbtcAmount is documented as sats with an exclusive minimum of 0), so baseline is 3. The description only restates 'sBTC collateral' and adds no unit, minimum, or relationship-to-position detail beyond the 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?
Specific verb + resource + venue + context: 'Withdraw sBTC collateral from Zest on the Pillar smart wallet' tells an agent exactly what operation this performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as pillar_unwind or zest_withdraw, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 statement of when to use this versus pillar_unwind, zest_withdraw, or pillar_direct_supply, and no preconditions (e.g. an existing Zest supply position). The only guidance present is an unrelated tip pointing at earning_opportunities for yield discovery.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.