new_coin_withdrawal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It warns about required confirmations but does not detail error behavior, rate limits, or consequences of failure. The output schema exists but isn't referenced, so return behavior is unclear.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-line purpose, a note about confirmation, then a bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given 5 parameters (3 required) and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and a security aspect. Output schema exists, so return format is handled. Missing prerequisites like balance requirements or differentiation from new_fiat_withdrawal keep it from a 5.

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%, yet the description explains each parameter: currency examples, amount as string, withdrawal_address_id as 'e.g. XRP tag'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type/title. However, it could specify amount format or constraints.

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 'Create a new cryptocurrency withdrawal.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, distinguishing it from siblings like new_fiat_withdrawal and place_order.

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 informs that 'BitOasis requires email and SMS/TOTP confirmation for withdrawals,' providing a crucial usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like new_fiat_withdrawal or indicate when to avoid using this tool.

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