ultrade_market_settings

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 settings' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 ('Get market settings'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. For a simple tool, this brevity is appropriate, though it may sacrifice clarity. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient in structure.

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 (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'market settings' includes, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits. For a tool in a crowded sibling set, more context is needed to help the agent use it correctly without trial and error.

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 the single parameter 'domain' documented as 'Domain of the dApp'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or context for the domain parameter. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without extra help from 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 'Get market settings' clearly states the action (get) and resource (market settings), which is adequate. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'ultrade_market_details' or 'ultrade_market_fee_rates', which might also retrieve market-related information. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'market settings' entails compared to similar tools.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'ultrade_market_details', 'ultrade_market_fee_rates'), it's unclear if this is for general settings, specific configurations, or other purposes. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, 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.