querySubMemberDepositAddress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral constraints: master UID requirement, validation of parent-child relationship, and unavailability for certain sub-account types (custodial, Copper bound) and UAE coin restrictions. This is strong transparency for a query tool, though it omits details on response format or error handling.

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 very concise: one sentence and four bullet points. Every sentence adds value—main action, auth requirement, and key restrictions. No redundant or vague language.

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 no output schema, the description covers the tool's essential constraints and context well. It explains when and for whom this tool works. However, it lacks details on the return format or any pagination/error behavior, which would be helpful for a complete understanding.

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%, yet the description does not explain the parameters (coin, chainType, subMemberId). It relies on the parameter names being self-explanatory. While the tool name and constraints add context, a good description would explicitly describe each parameter's meaning and allowed values to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states 'Query deposit address for a sub-account' which is a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like queryDepositAddress by emphasizing 'sub-account' and 'master UID API key only', making the specific scope obvious.

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 clear context: requires master UID API key only and lists multiple restrictions (custodial sub-accounts, Copper custody, UAE coin restrictions). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when these restrictions apply (e.g., queryDepositAddress for main account), leaving usage guidelines slightly implicit.

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