querySubMemberDepositAddress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it validates the parent-child relationship, excludes custodial and Copper-bound sub-accounts, and mentions regional coin restrictions. This goes beyond what annotations state, though it does not describe error behavior or response format.

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 with the main purpose, followed by four concise bullet points that each add a distinct constraint. There is no redundant phrasing or irrelevant detail, and 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 read-only query with three required parameters, the description covers the key preconditions and restrictions. However, because there is no output schema and the input schema has no parameter descriptions, the lack of chainType semantics and any mention of return format leaves the definition just at minimum viability.

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 compensate for the undocumented parameters. It indirectly clarifies subMemberId (sub-account) and coin (UAE restrictions imply coin means cryptocurrency), but chainType is entirely unexplained. No formats, allowed values, or relationship between parameters are given, leaving a significant gap for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Query deposit address for a sub-account.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling queryDepositAddress (which presumably targets the main account) and from querySubMemberDepositRecords (which returns records, not an address). The master UID requirement adds scope.

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 provides explicit when-not conditions: custodial sub-account addresses are unavailable, Copper-bound sub-accounts are not allowed, and UAE coin restrictions apply. It also states the prerequisite that only a master UID API key can be used. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for main-account deposits or for other cases, so it stops short of a full 5.

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