ultrade_market_operation_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 operation details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the details are returned in (e.g., JSON structure), potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 zero wasted text. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get operation details'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 implied by the sibling tools (e.g., trading operations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'operation details' include, how they relate to other tools, or what the agent can expect in return. For a tool in a financial/trading context with rich sibling functionality, this minimal description fails to provide adequate context for 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'operationId' documented as 'Operation ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what constitutes a valid operation ID or where to obtain it. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 operation details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ultrade_market_operation_details'. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'operation details', but doesn't clarify what 'operation' means in this context (e.g., trade, order, transaction) or how it differs from similar tools like 'ultrade_market_order_by_id' or 'ultrade_market_history'. The purpose is vague without domain-specific context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like 'ultrade_market_order_by_id' (which might retrieve order details) and 'ultrade_market_history' (which might list past operations), the description provides no context to help an agent choose appropriately. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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