bitpin_get_withdrawal_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: authentication requirement and a 10,000/day rate limit. However it omits pagination behavior (limit/offset defaults), ordering of results, and return shape, which matters for a history-listing tool.

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?

Three short, front-loaded clauses with zero padding: purpose, filters, then operational constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers auth, rate limit, and filter set, but for a 7-parameter paginated list tool with no output schema, the absence of pagination and result-shape guidance leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 per-parameter descriptions including format hints (YYYY-MM-DD) and a currency example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the main filters but adds nothing beyond the schema and omits limit/offset.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get withdrawal history on BitPin") and enumerates the filterable dimensions, which cleanly separates it from siblings like bitpin_get_deposit_history and bitpin_get_fills.

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?

Implied usage only: it tells you what it returns and the rate limit, but never says when to prefer it over related tools or what happens with no filters applied. No explicit when-not guidance.

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