fetchWithdrawals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'configured account' which hints at setup requirements, but doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a data-fetching tool and front-loads the essential 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?

For a financial data tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain what withdrawal data is returned, authentication requirements, rate limits, and error handling. The minimal description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 verb 'fetch' and resource 'withdrawal history', specifying it's for a configured account. It distinguishes from siblings like fetchDeposits (different resource) and fetchBalance (different data type). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from fetchClosedOrders or fetchMyTrades which might also involve transaction history.

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. It doesn't mention when withdrawals should be fetched versus deposits, trades, or orders, nor does it specify prerequisites like account configuration. The sibling tools include multiple data-fetching tools without clear differentiation.

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