getTieredCollateralRatio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar for added behavioral context is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior: returns all coins when currency is omitted, each tier has minQty/maxQty/collateralRatio, and an empty maxQty string means no upper limit. It also clarifies the endpoint is public and requires no authentication, which is useful operational context.

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 front-loaded and uses compact bullets, making the main behavior easy to scan. However, the 'Agent hint' repeats prior content: empty maxQty/unlimited, the currency filter, and the tier fields all appear twice. The redundancy is not harmful, but not every sentence earns its place.

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 public query with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the default behavior, parameter effect, tier shape, and the infinity convention. The lack of an output schema is partially offset by the listed field names. Minor gaps like exact value formats or an example currency remain, but the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the semantic weight for currency, and it does: passing currency filters to a specific coin, while omitting it returns all tiers. It also defines the returned tier field meanings, helping an agent understand what to expect. A concrete example currency value like 'BTC' would improve it, but the core semantics are clear.

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 first sentence names a specific resource ('UTA loan tiered collateral ratio') and a concrete verb ('Query') scoped to spot margin trading, so it is not a tautology or vague. The bullet explaining that omitting currency returns all coins further sharpens the tool's scope, distinguishing it from broad sibling names like getCollateralInfo.

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 agent hint explicitly states a use case: 'Use this to check how much collateral value a given coin contributes at different holding levels.' It also gives a rule for when to omit or pass currency. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full when-not/alternatives statement.

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