Withdraw Stake

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds critical context that the tool only builds an unsigned transaction (not submitting it), which is essential for understanding its side effects and output. No contradiction with annotations.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with 'Advanced:' to signal audience, and every word provides value. It is perfectly concise with no wasted text.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description clearly communicates that the tool returns an unsigned transaction. However, it does not specify the transaction format or how to submit it, which might be expected for a transaction-building tool. Still, it is complete enough for an advanced tool given the context.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains the parameters adequately. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly states the verb 'build an unsigned withdraw transaction' and specifies the resource 'withdraw transaction for local signing'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'withdraw', making the purpose immediately clear.

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 provides explicit guidance: it is for advanced use cases requiring local signing, and explicitly recommends the 'withdraw' tool for most agents. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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