Prepare a cash-out

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

The description adds crucial behavioral context not in annotations: the server never accepts a private key or submits transactions, and it requires explicit approval before host-side signing. This is valuable beyond the readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false annotations. It doesn't fully describe all side effects, but the key security model is disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, the security property, and the required approval workflow. No fluff or redundant phrasing. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description explains the essential workflow (prepare unsigned transactions, obtain approval) and the non-custodial nature. It doesn't detail return values, but there's no output schema, and the schema provides parameter structure. The main gap is lack of usage differentiation, but overall it's reasonably complete for safe invocation.

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 only 50% (amount has a description, receive does not). The description text adds no parameter-level semantics, leaving receive's meaning and format entirely to the complex schema. Description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 prepares unsigned Base USDC approval and createDeposit transactions, with the verb 'prepare' and specific transaction types. The title clarifies it's for cash-out. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like peer_cash_prepare_withdraw, but the purpose is still unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The only operational guidance is 'Show the plan and obtain explicit approval before host-side signing,' which is a workflow step, not a usage context. There's no comparison with sibling tools like withdraw or top-up.

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