withdraw_refund

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Withdraws' implies a financial mutation, but the description does not disclose authorization requirements, irreversibility, gas/fee behavior, or what happens when no refund is available — critical omissions for a funds-moving operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core purpose immediately without filler or redundancy.

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 financial withdrawal tool with no annotations, no output schema, and high-stakes mutation behavior, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits what the caller must supply externally, what a successful call produces, and under what conditions the operation fails.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is complete and the description needs no parameter details. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4; the description adds no param semantics but none are required.

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 states a specific verb ('Withdraws') and resource ('USDG refunds the escrow holds for this wallet'), making the core action clear. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this tool from any sibling such as list_payout_tokens or get_my_account, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The implied context — withdrawing refunds — is inferable only from the purpose statement, not from explicit usage direction.

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