ultrade_market_details

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 market details' implies a read-only operation but does not specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output entails (e.g., structured data vs. raw text). This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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, efficient phrase ('Get market details') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is overly terse, bordering on under-specification, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex market data. It fails to explain what 'details' include, the format of the response, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional assumptions.

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 the parameter 'symbol' documented as 'Market symbol, e.g. sol_eth'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 market details' restates the tool name 'ultrade_market_details' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('market details') but lacks specificity about what details are retrieved, failing to distinguish it from siblings like 'ultrade_market_price' or 'ultrade_market_depth' that might also provide market-related information.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'ultrade_market_price', 'ultrade_market_depth', 'ultrade_market_history'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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