ultrade_wallet_add_key

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 fails to do so. It states 'Add a trading key' but doesn't explain what this operation does (e.g., modifies wallet permissions, requires authentication, has side effects like rate limits or irreversible changes). The lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about critical behavioral traits.

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 a single phrase, 'Add a trading key', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's overly terse to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary detail for a tool with 9 required parameters and no annotations. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses points for insufficient content.

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 (9 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in the broader system (e.g., wallet management), what 'adding a trading key' achieves, or any behavioral context. For a mutation tool with significant parameters, this minimal description fails to provide adequate context for an agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'message' as signed hex, 'addKey' toggles add/revoke). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline score is 3. No parameter-specific context is provided in the description to elevate the score.

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 'Add a trading key' restates the tool name 'ultrade_wallet_add_key' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what 'adding' entails operationally or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'ultrade_wallet_revoke_key', which handles revocation. The purpose is vague beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a signed message from 'ultrade_wallet_key_message'), exclusions, or contextual cues. The description alone offers no help in distinguishing it from related wallet or market tools in the sibling list.

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