Sera MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

prepare_withdraw

Prepare a withdrawal transaction to move funds from the exchange back to your wallet. Provide token, amount, and wallet address to create the transaction.

Instructions

Prepare a withdrawal transaction to move funds from exchange balance back to wallet.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "token_address": "<token_address>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "owner_address": "<owner_address>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_withdraw"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	Yes	Amount to withdraw (human-readable)
`owner_address`	Yes	Wallet address
`token_address`	Yes	Token to withdraw

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description clarifies it only prepares the transaction and does not execute it, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on side effects, whether funds are locked, or what is returned, which is important for a non-executing preparation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly front-loads the action ('prepare'), the resource ('withdrawal transaction'), and the purpose, with no unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the prepared transaction looks like and how to proceed (e.g., calling execute_withdraw). It does not, leaving the workflow ambiguous. The tool is part of a larger withdrawal process with sibling tools, but this is not addressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema descriptions cover all three parameters (token_address, amount, owner_address) at 100% coverage with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it prepares a withdrawal transaction to move funds from exchange balance back to wallet. The verb 'prepare' distinguishes it from execute_withdraw, and 'from exchange balance back to wallet' differentiates it from prepare_deposit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word 'prepare' implies it is a preliminary step before executing a withdrawal, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus execute_withdraw or that execute_withdraw must follow. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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