x402_withdraw_earnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose that this is a state-changing, likely irreversible transaction. It adds only minimal context ('from the facilitator', 'to your wallet') and omits critical details like gas fees, the need for facilitator authorization, or what happens on success/error.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and clearly identifies the action and destination. There is no wasted verbiage; it is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameters are well-documented in the schema.

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 description lacks essential operational context for a financial withdrawal: no mention of irreversibility, return value or transaction hash expectations, gas costs, or facilitator authorization requirements. With no annotations and no output schema, the description alone is insufficient for safe and complete guidance.

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 meaningful descriptions for all three parameters (amount supports 'all', token enum, toAddress defaults to configured wallet). The description adds no parameter-level insight, but given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action (Withdraw), the resource (accumulated earnings), and the destination (to your wallet). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402_list_earnings and x402_balance, which merely read or list earnings.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: you would use this when you have accumulated earnings to withdraw. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from related x402 tools, mention prerequisites, or state when not to use it.

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