Prepare an order withdrawal

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, but the description adds meaningful nuance: it discloses that the tool prepares unsigned transactions (not executing directly) and that omitting amount closes the entire order while providing an amount performs a partial withdrawal. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains conditional behavior for the amount parameter. No filler, front-loaded with the most important 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage nuances, and implies return type (unsigned transactions). It does not mention prerequisites or edge cases, but given the tool's narrow scope and the annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 explains the 'amount' parameter in detail (omit to close, provide base-unit amount for partial withdrawal), adding value beyond the schema's pattern. However, it does not describe 'depositId' at all. With only 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves a required parameter unexplained.

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 'Prepare unsigned transactions to withdraw unmatched funds' — a specific verb (prepare) and resource (withdrawal of unmatched funds). It distinguishes itself from siblings like peer_cash_prepare_top_up by focusing solely on withdrawal.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Omit amount to close the order; pass a Base USDC base-unit amount for a partial withdrawal.' This explains how to invoke the tool in different scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though the name and sibling list make the purpose obvious.

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