get_withdrawals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the requirement for authentication and implies a read-only operation via 'List', but does not disclose return format, pagination details, or side-effect-free confirmation. Minimal additional behavioral context is supplied.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It conveys the essential purpose and a key requirement without excess, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and authentication requirement, which is adequate for a basic read operation. It could mention whether results are chronological or paginated, but the schema already caps the limit, so the level of detail is sufficient.

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% for the single parameter 'limit', which is already described with a maximum cap. The description adds no additional meaning or usage nuance beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('the authenticated account's withdrawal history'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_trades and list_deposits. The scope is explicit, ensuring no ambiguity about which data is retrieved.

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 a prerequisite (API credentials) but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or recommend it over similar tools for specific scenarios, making usage context only partially clear.

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