Withdrawal status and network fees: which exchanges paused withdrawals, per asset and network

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

Annotations already convey read-only, open-world behavior. The description builds on this by disclosing that it returns a ranked overview of currently paused withdrawals, includes recent suspension/resumption events, and is recorded daily from 20+ venues. This adds useful behavioral context 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 three dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the call triggers and then explains the no-argument and filtered variants. Every sentence adds useful operational 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?

With only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers invocation patterns, result scope, data source, and update cadence. An agent has enough to decide whether to call it and how to construct arguments.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining what passing 'asset' does ('every venue and network of that asset') and that 'venue' narrows results. It also provides concrete examples (USDT, kucoin) that reinforce parameter format.

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 states exactly what the tool answers: paused withdrawals or deposits, open networks per asset, withdrawal fees/minimums, and cheapest venue. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly distinct from the surrounding get_* data 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 description explicitly says when to call the tool ('Call this when the user asks...') and explains the behavior with no arguments, with asset, and with venue. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the trigger conditions are very clear.

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