getWithdrawableAmountByCoin

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not needed to establish safety. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that both FUND and UTA accounts are covered and that funds may be partially frozen due to pending on-chain deposits or risk review, going beyond the 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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses two bullet points that add meaningful behavioral detail without redundancy. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 one-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the input, the account types covered, and a key caveat about frozen funds. It could specify the response shape or exact return format, but the low complexity makes the current description sufficient for selecting the tool.

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%, and the description only repeats the concept of 'coin' without adding value such as valid formats, examples, case sensitivity, or how the coin value should be represented. An agent gets no more semantic detail than the parameter name 'coin' already provides.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'withdrawable amount for a specific coin', and adds specificity by naming FUND and UTA account types. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from, but the scope is clear enough to separate it from generic balance or withdrawal-history tools.

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 usage context is implied: call this when you need a coin's withdrawable amount across account types. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over similar tools like getWalletBalance or queryWithdrawRecords, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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