Prepare an order withdrawal

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that omitting amount closes the order, while passing an amount performs a partial withdrawal. It does not mention other side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then concise usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 covers both withdrawal modes (full close and partial) and specifies the asset unit. Given the simple schema (2 params) and no output schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could include a hint about depositId, but that is not essential.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'amount' parameter (Base USDC base-unit, omit to close). However, it does not add meaning to 'depositId', which is only defined by the schema's required field and minLength, leaving its purpose implicit.

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's function: 'Prepare unsigned transactions to withdraw unmatched funds.' This uses a specific verb ('withdraw') and resource ('unmatched funds'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_top_up by explicitly targeting withdrawals.

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, or pass a Base USDC base-unit amount for a partial withdrawal. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, though the title and context make it obvious.

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