Get withdrawal status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by stating 'read-only' explicitly, requiring the `wallet_read` scope, and clarifying that this MCP cannot create withdrawals (which aligns with the readOnlyHint). There is no contradiction. This adds useful behavioral context beyond 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 extremely concise—two short sentences that immediately convey the purpose, scope requirement, and a key behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description adequately covers all needed context: what the tool does, its scope requirement, and what it does not do. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need to be described. No information gaps remain.

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 a single parameter `withdrawal_id` that has a description including test mode format. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 reads a withdrawal's status (read-only). It uses the specific verb 'read' and identifies the resource as 'withdrawal status'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly stating it cannot create withdrawals, which is a different action performed by other 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 provides clear when-to-use context (to read a withdrawal's status) and an explicit exclusion (cannot create withdrawals). It also mentions the required scope `wallet_read`. However, it does not name alternative tools for related operations like get_deposit_status, but the sibling list provides that context. The guidance is strong but not perfect.

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