ultrade_market_order_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get order by ID' suggests a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention authentication requirements (implied by wallet parameters), rate limits, error handling, or what data is returned. For a tool with authentication parameters and no output schema, 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 with just three words, which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, it's arguably under-specified given the tool's complexity (involving authentication and financial data), so it loses a point for not being appropriately detailed while remaining efficient.

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 (financial trading tool with authentication parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'order' contains, how authentication works with the parameters, or what the return value looks like. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (orderId, walletAddress, walletToken, tradingKey) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'orderId' is used to retrieve the order, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 order by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('order'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'ultrade_market_orders' (which likely lists multiple orders) or 'ultrade_market_order_message' (which might retrieve order messages). It specifies retrieval by ID, which provides some distinction but lacks detail about what an 'order' entails in this 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for retrieving a single order by its unique ID, as opposed to using 'ultrade_market_orders' for a list or 'ultrade_market_open_orders' for pending ones. The description implies usage by ID but offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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