kraken_get_withdrawal_addresses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly conveys a read-only listing operation, which is not destructive. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format specifics, though an output schema exists.

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 directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easily scannable.

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 listing tool with complete schema descriptions and an output schema, the description is adequate but not enriched. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools and offers no additional context about behavior or edge cases, making it merely complete enough.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both required parameters (asset and method), so schema coverage is 100%. The description merely references them without adding extra semantic detail, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'configured withdrawal addresses' scoped by asset and method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kraken_get_withdrawal_methods and kraken_get_withdrawal_info by focusing specifically on addresses.

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 implies usage—when you need to list withdrawal addresses for a given asset/method—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. It is minimally viable but lacks clarity.

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