CDP withdraw max

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'maximum safe' which hints at safety constraints, but fails to explain what 'safe' means (e.g., risk limits, collateral ratios), whether this is a destructive operation, permission requirements, or potential side effects. For a financial operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase that efficiently conveys the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, and it's front-loaded with the essential information, making it structurally optimal for its brevity.

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 the complexity of a CDP withdrawal operation, no annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details about behavior, parameters, return values, and differentiation from sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use this tool effectively.

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 has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'asset' completely undocumented. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'asset' represents (e.g., token type, identifier format), acceptable values, or how it relates to 'maximum safe collateral'. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('withdraw') and resource ('maximum safe collateral'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'strato.cdp.withdraw' or other withdrawal tools in the CDP/lending context, which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'strato.cdp.withdraw' or 'strato.lending.withdraw-collateral-max'. There's no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or comparative context with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient usage direction.

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