ultrade_market_balances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get account balances' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements (e.g., whether walletToken or tradingKey are needed for certain balances), rate limits, error conditions, or what 'balances' includes (e.g., fiat, crypto, locked funds). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely accesses sensitive financial data.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence ('Get account balances') with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 of financial data tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication, error handling, or return format (e.g., balance types, currencies), which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively in a trading or wallet context.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for walletAddress, walletToken, and tradingKey. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or typical usage patterns), so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get account balances' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('account balances'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ultrade_wallet_transactions' or 'ultrade_wallet_trades' that might also retrieve financial data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'ultrade_wallet_transactions' for transaction history, 'ultrade_market_assets' for asset listings), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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