get-beacon-withdrawals

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or the response structure. The tool likely returns a list of withdrawals, but no details are given.

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 a single sentence that is both concise and informative for its purpose. There are no redundant words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 that the tool has 6 parameters (including pagination and filtering) and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain how pagination works, the meaning of startBlock/endBlock, or the expected format of the output. A more complete description would clarify these aspects.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it only mentions the function's subject. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 specifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('beacon chain withdrawals'), and the context ('for an Ethereum address (ETH 2.0 staking withdrawals)'. This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-transactions or get-block-details.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when an address has staking withdrawals or when other ETH-related queries might be more appropriate. It lacks any mention of prerequisites or context.

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