withdraw_compound

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It lacks details on prerequisites, transaction implications, gas, or what happens if asset not supplied. Only mentions 'previously supplied' but does not elaborate on failure modes or security considerations.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, immediately conveys the core action and a key usage tip.

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?

Moderately complete given the tool's complexity. States the specific market (Comet USDC) and amount flexibility, but omits return values, error handling, and prerequisite checks. With no output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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 adequate descriptions for each parameter. The description reinforces the 'max' usage for amount, but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema.

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 action (withdraws), the resource (supplied asset from Compound V3 Comet USDC market), and distinguishes from sibling tools like withdraw_aave (different protocol) and supply_compound (opposite action).

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?

Provides specific guidance on using 'max' for the amount parameter. Implicitly indicates usage context (from Compound V3) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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