ultrade_market_order_message

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 but offers none. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, if it has side effects (e.g., generates a signing message), what the output format might be, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. The vague term 'Generate message' leaves behavior ambiguous.

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, short sentence ('Generate message from the order data'), which is concise and front-loaded. However, it's under-specified—the brevity comes at the cost of clarity, as it lacks essential details about purpose and usage, making it inefficient rather than optimally concise.

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 (1 parameter with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameters mean, or what to expect as output, leaving the agent unable to effectively invoke this tool in context with its many siblings.

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 1 parameter ('data') with 7 nested properties (symbol, side, type, quantity, price, loginAddress, loginChainId), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'message' is generated from them, their roles, or any formatting requirements (e.g., quantity as a string). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Generate message from the order data' restates the tool name 'ultrade_market_order_message' in slightly different words, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what kind of message is generated (e.g., confirmation, summary, signing request) or for what purpose, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'ultrade_market_create_order' or 'ultrade_wallet_key_message'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing order data from another tool), context (e.g., before signing or submitting an order), or relationships to siblings like 'ultrade_market_create_order' or 'ultrade_wallet_signin_message'.

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