get_broker_sub_deposit_record

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Get records' but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about the tool's 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a clear 'Args:' block. It is concise without wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 the complexity (many sibling tools, 3 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, any boundaries on 'limit', or how to differentiate this from other deposit record tools. The description lacks completeness for effective tool selection and 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 coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning. Each parameter is briefly described: 'Sub member ID (optional)', 'Filter by coin (optional)', 'Number of records (default: 50)'. This provides context beyond the schema titles, but descriptions are minimal and could be more detailed (e.g., format of sub_member_id).

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 'Get broker sub account deposit records' with verb 'Get' and specific resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'get_sub_deposit_records' by specifying 'broker sub account', but the distinction could be more explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_deposit_records' or 'get_sub_deposit_records'. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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