Методы вывода

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the subject matter but does not explicitly state whether the tool is a read-only query, whether authentication is needed, an whether it has side effects or returns a simple. The phrasing 'available methods' implies a safe list operation, but nothing substantive is disclosed beyond that implication.

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?

A single short sentence that says everything necessary and nothing more. The main subject (fiat withdrawal methods) is front-loaded, followed by the terminal association. No verbose or redundant content.

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?

For a 0-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential semantic inside: it tells the agent what the tool is about and what it will cover. It does not describe the exact response shape, but given the absence of parameters and simple intent, the omission is acceptable and the description is adequate for an agent to call it.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the input schema already covers everything. The description correctly does not try to add parameters. For a parameterless tool the baseline is 4, and the description does not detract or add irrelevant parameter details.

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 specifies the resource (fiat withdrawal methods) and its scope (methods plus linked terminals), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like wata_wallet_withdrawal_limits or wata_wallet_withdraw_initiate. However, it relies on a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', so it stops short of the highest clarity mark.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as wata_wallet_withdrawal_limits or wata_wallet_withdraw_initiate. An agent is not told whether this should be called before initiating a withdrawal, nor are any exclusion conditions provided.

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