prepare_compound_withdraw

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail that 'amount: "max"' withdraws the full balance, which is valuable guidance. No contradictions with annotations. The description reasonably augments the annotations without needing to restate them.

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 with two sentences: one stating the core purpose and one providing a critical usage detail. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (likely an unsigned transaction object). It also omits prerequisites like requiring a market address and wallet. While the schema covers parameters, the description could be more complete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 thorough descriptions for each parameter. The description's note about 'amount: "max"' is already present in the schema's amount description, so it adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: building an unsigned Compound V3 withdraw transaction. The specific verb 'Build' and the resource 'unsigned Compound V3 withdraw transaction' are precise, and the additional 'max' amount hint adds clarity. The tool is well-distinguished from siblings like prepare_compound_supply.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. However, the name and the context of 'withdraw' imply its usage, and the 'max' hint offers practical guidance. It is adequate but lacks explicit differentiation from other prepare_compound_* tools.

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