ultrade_market_withdrawal_fee

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 withdrawal fee' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what format the fee information is in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, though this brevity contributes to the vagueness in other dimensions.

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 tool's complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the withdrawal fee represents, how the parameters interact, or what the return value looks like. For a tool that likely involves cross-chain token transfers, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 clear parameter names and types. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already documents 'tokenIndex', 'tokenChainId', and 'recipientChainId'. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high, but doesn't compensate with extra context like examples or edge cases.

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 withdrawal fee' clearly states the action (get) and resource (withdrawal fee), but it's vague about what exactly is being retrieved. It doesn't specify whether this is a fee amount, percentage, structure, or policy, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ultrade_market_fee_rates' or 'ultrade_wallet_withdraw' that might also involve fees.

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 sibling tools like 'ultrade_market_fee_rates' and 'ultrade_wallet_withdraw' that likely relate to fees, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. No context or prerequisites are mentioned.

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