getTieredCollateralRatio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as a query (read-only) and discloses the behavior of empty maxQty indicating infinity. It does not mention rate limits or side effects, but for a read-only query, the transparency covers the key behavioral traits.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with a main line, bullet points, and an agent hint. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the return structure (tiers with minQty, maxQty, collateralRatio), the infinity behavior, and the public nature. For a simple query tool with one parameter, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the single parameter `currency`. It does so by stating that omitting it returns all coins, while passing a value filters for a specific coin. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 queries the UTA loan tiered collateral ratio for spot margin trading. It specifies that it returns tiers for all coins if currency is not specified, and explains the structure of each tier. This distinguishes it from other getter tools, though it could be more explicit about the exact return format.

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 description includes an agent hint explaining that this is a public endpoint and should be used to check collateral value contributions at different holding levels. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the specificity, the guidance is adequate.

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