ultrade_market_create_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create new order' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information on authentication requirements (though parameters hint at it), rate limits, idempotency, side effects (e.g., fund deductions), error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of informativeness. Every word earns its place, but the place is minimal.

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 complexity (a mutation tool for financial orders), no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is highly incomplete. The description fails to explain what an 'order' entails, authentication needs, return values, or error handling. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 all 4 parameters (e.g., 'The signed message in hex format'). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Create new order' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ultrade_market_create_order'. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'order', but lacks any detail about what type of order (e.g., buy/sell, limit/market) or on what market/asset. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'ultrade_market_create_orders' (plural) or 'ultrade_market_cancel_order'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication via wallet), differentiate from 'ultrade_market_create_orders' (batch creation), or specify scenarios like placing trades versus managing orders. The description offers no context for usage decisions.

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