execute_withdraw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the private key requirement, but does not state that this is an irreversible, state-changing transaction, that gas fees apply, or that funds are permanently moved. For a high-stakes financial operation, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. The private key requirement is relevant and concisely stated, with zero filler.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the execution flow, such as referencing prepare_withdraw, indicating reversibility, or noting possible outcomes. The current description is too brief for the complexity and risk involved.

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 both parameters ('amount' and 'token_address') already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a withdrawal to move funds from exchange back to wallet.' This clearly distinguishes it from prepare_withdraw (preparation step) and other execution tools like execute_deposit or execute_swap.

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 as the execution step for withdrawals, but it does not explicitly say 'use after prepare_withdraw' or mention when not to use it. There is no explicit exclusion of alternatives, though the naming and context make the intended use reasonably clear.

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