Withdrawals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral details beyond listing, which is consistent. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not provide extra context (e.g., pagination behavior, data latency). With annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no fluff. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness (e.g., mentioning pagination), thus a 4.

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 simple list tool with only pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not specify what the withdrawal history entries contain or any ordering, but given the tool's simplicity and the richness of annotations, a 3 is reasonable.

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%, with both parameters ('page', 'size') having clear descriptions of type and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning. As per guidelines, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the description does not enhance 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 'List withdrawal history for the current account,' specifying the verb (list), resource (withdrawal history), and scope (current account). While it is clear and distinct from siblings like 'deposits' or 'trades', it does not explicitly differentiate itself, so it misses a 5.

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 does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools (e.g., 'trades' or 'today_executions'). This lack of usage context forces the agent to infer appropriateness from the name alone.

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