getWithdrawableAmountByCoin

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful context that withdrawable amounts may be partially frozen due to pending on-chain deposits or risk review, which helps the agent interpret returned values. It also indicates the return covers FUND and UTA accounts, though it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or exact response shape.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bullet points add meaningful caveats without unnecessary filler, and 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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main purpose, the account types, and an important freeze caveat. However, with no output schema, no parameter format details, and no usage guidance relative to similar tools, it leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to call it and interpret the response.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining the coin parameter. It only says 'for a specific coin,' which adds little beyond the schema's property name. No format, examples, or valid value conventions are provided.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('withdrawable amount for a specific coin'), and explicitly names the account types covered (FUND and UTA). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like getAccountWithdrawalInfo or getWalletBalance, but its scope is specific enough to be recognizable.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of related wallet/withdrawal tools. There are no alternative tool names, exclusions, or contextual triggers mentioned.

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