withdraw_funds

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 states the action ('withdraw') which implies a financial transaction, but doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, transaction fees, confirmation times, irreversible nature of withdrawals, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool handling financial operations.

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 efficient with zero wasted words. The purpose is stated in one clear sentence, followed by a well-structured parameter list. Every element serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 that this is a financial transaction tool with no annotations and 5 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) means the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool performing irreversible financial withdrawals, more behavioral context would be expected to reach higher completeness.

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 description explicitly lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations, adding significant value beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. While it doesn't provide detailed format requirements or examples for parameters like 'chain' or 'token_type', it does give basic semantic meaning to each parameter that the schema lacks.

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 funds') and target ('to external wallet'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'create_payment_order' that might also involve fund transfers, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 'create_payment_order' or 'list_payment_orders'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for withdrawal operations versus other payment-related actions.

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