kraken_get_withdrawal_methods

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, authentication needs, or rate limits, but it states only the operation. The verb 'retrieve' implies read-only, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It provides the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it omits usage context and behavioral disclosures that would be expected given the absence of annotations. It provides no differentiation from similar withdrawal-related tools.

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 schema already fully describes the 'asset' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds no new meaning beyond restating that it operates on a specific asset, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('withdrawal methods') with a scope ('for a specific asset'). It is distinct from sibling tools like kraken_get_deposit_methods, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool, prerequisites, or how it fits into a withdrawal workflow. It does not mention alternatives such as kraken_get_withdrawal_addresses or kraken_withdraw_funds, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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