queryWithdrawRecords

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses important behaviors (read replica usage, withdrawType mapping, AML record field replacement, status indicator). It does not mention rate limits or explicit read-only nature, but overall provides good transparency.

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 concisely structured with bullet points, front-loading the main purpose. Each section adds distinct value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains operational details (read replica, type mapping, special cases) that affect the query results. It does not describe the output fields, but the business rules provide sufficient context for a query 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains startTime, endTime constraints and withdrawType enum values, but does not describe withdrawID, txID, coin, limit, or cursor parameters. Thus, it adds partial value but leaves gaps.

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's action ('Query withdrawal records') and provides specific constraints (Master UID API key only, max 30-day range, business rules). This differentiates it from sibling tools like queryDepositRecords 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?

The description gives clear usage context (API key requirement, date range limits, default behavior for missing startTime/endTime). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternative tools among the many siblings.

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