fetch_withdrawals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: authentication is required. 'List ... history' implies a safe read, but nothing is said about ordering, time-window scoping, or whether results are paginated beyond the limit.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource and scope are front-loaded before the credential requirement. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it stops at the auth requirement. For a history-listing tool it should at least note ordering or whether the credential is per-account, but it is adequate for a simple one-parameter read.

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% and the single optional 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the max 100 cap). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List the authenticated account's withdrawal history'), which tells an agent exactly what data comes back. However, the sibling list contains 'get_withdrawals', an apparent near-duplicate, and the description offers no differentiation between the two.

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 only guidance is 'Requires API credentials', which is a prerequisite rather than a when-to-use rule. It never says how this differs from get_withdrawals, nor that it is the read counterpart to deposit/create_deposit, leaving alternative selection entirely to inference.

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