chainpay_create_withdrawal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that admin approval may be required, which is a key behavioral trait beyond a simple 'create' operation. However, it does not specify return format or error behavior, but for a submission tool this is reasonable.

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 consists of two short sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It is efficient, contains no unnecessary text, and each sentence adds value.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and conditions. However, it lacks information about the response (e.g., whether a withdrawal ID is returned) and error scenarios. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a mutation 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with complete descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond the schema, only implying the amount and token symbol form. Since the schema already documents the parameters well, the description's marginal value is 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 action ('Submit a withdrawal request'), the resource ('funds to the merchant's bound withdrawal address'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like chainpay_create_order (order creation) and chainpay_get_balance (balance query). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 includes prerequisites ('Requires a withdrawal address to be configured') and a condition ('May require admin approval'), guiding the agent on when the tool is applicable. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context and sibling names make the use case clear.

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