getWithdrawableAmountByCoin

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

The description discloses that funds may be partially frozen due to on-chain deposit confirmations or risk review, which is a key behavioral detail for a query tool with no annotations. This adds value beyond the basic function.

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 brief with two bullet points and a tags line. It is front-loaded but the tags line is redundant. Still, it avoids verbosity and gets the key points across efficiently.

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 simple query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns and a behavioral caveat about frozen funds. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 description mentions 'for a specific coin' which maps to the single parameter 'coin', but it does not add detailed meaning beyond what the schema provides (string, required). Given 0% schema coverage, this is adequate but minimal.

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 tool retrieves withdrawable amounts for a specific coin, specifying account types (FUND and UTA). This distinctively sets it apart from siblings like getWalletBalance or queryBalance.

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?

While the description provides context (returns from FUND and UTA accounts), it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like getWalletBalance or getAccountWithdrawalInfo, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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