kraken_withdraw_funds

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects but only mentions 'initiate a withdrawal'. It does not state that the action is irreversible, may incur fees, requires sufficient funds, or could be subject to delays or cancellations. The output schema exists but is not described in the text.

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 immediately conveys the core function. No filler, perfectly front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 financial mutation with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It lacks preconditions, expected outcomes, fee/reversibility details, and differentiation from related withdrawal and transfer operations, making it incomplete for safe usage.

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 describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds the context of 'preconfigured address' but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema.

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 ('initiate a withdrawal of funds') and the destination ('preconfigured address'), which distinguishes it from internal transfers or withdrawal management tools. This is specific and 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kraken_wallet_transfer or kraken_get_withdrawal_status. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the withdrawal key must be configured) or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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