queryWithdrawRecords

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds substantial detail: read replica usage, withdrawType mapping, AML liquidation record field replacement, and the MoreInformationRequired status. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent important non-obvious behavior.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose, constraints, and business rules in bullet form. There is minor redundancy between 'Max 30-day range per query' and 'endTime - startTime must be less than 30 days,' but overall every bullet contributes meaningful 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 tool with 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers several critical edge cases and behavioral rules. However, it does not explain pagination semantics for cursor/limit, the meaning of filters like coin/txID/withdrawID, or the response record shape, leaving notable gaps for an agent invoking it confidently.

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 adds real meaning to startTime/endTime via the 30-day range and default behavior, and it thoroughly explains withdrawType enum values. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters, it leaves coin, txID, limit, cursor, and withdrawID unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's missing documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Query withdrawal records') and immediately defines the key variants via withdrawType: on-chain withdrawal, internal transfer, and all records. It is clear about what the tool does, but it never explicitly contrasts it with closely related siblings such as queryDepositRecords or getAccountWithdrawalInfo, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: Master UID API key restriction, 30-day range limit, default date window, and withdrawType selection behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the provided constraints make the usage context clear enough without being misleading.

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