ultrade_wallet_withdraw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Withdraw token' implies a destructive/mutative operation that moves assets out, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention authentication requirements (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, irreversible nature, confirmation times, network fees, or what happens on success/failure. For a financial transaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely 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 maximally concise with just two words. While severely under-specified, it's not wordy or poorly structured—every word earns its place by stating the core action. There's no fluff or redundant information.

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 this is a financial transaction tool (withdraw) with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 required parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'token' means, the withdrawal destination, success/failure behavior, authentication flow, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without external knowledge.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all 4 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself (message, signature, walletAddress, walletToken). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the verb 'withdraw', which implies these are authentication/signing parameters for a withdrawal operation. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 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 'Withdraw token' states the verb and resource but is extremely vague. It doesn't specify what type of token (cryptocurrency, utility token, etc.), from where (wallet, exchange, specific platform), or to where (external address, another wallet). While it distinguishes from most siblings (which are market-related or other wallet operations), it doesn't differentiate from 'ultrade_wallet_withdraw_message' which appears related. The description is a near-tautology of the tool name.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication via 'ultrade_wallet_signin' first), when withdrawal is appropriate versus other wallet operations like 'ultrade_wallet_transactions', or any constraints (e.g., minimum amounts, network fees). There's no reference to the sibling 'ultrade_wallet_withdraw_message' which likely provides a message to sign for this operation.

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