ultrade_wallet_key_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Generate message' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements (implied by 'walletToken'), side effects, or error handling. The description is too vague to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond basic parameter usage.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could be more informative. There's no unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient but potentially under-specified.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the generated message is used for, how it integrates with other tools, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool that likely involves key management operations in a trading context, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'addKey' interacts with 'type' or 'expiredDate'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 trading key data' states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions 'message' and 'trading key data' but doesn't clarify what type of message (e.g., authorization, transaction) or what the message is used for. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'ultrade_wallet_add_key' or 'ultrade_wallet_revoke_key' that might handle similar operations.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or relationships to sibling tools such as 'ultrade_wallet_add_key' or 'ultrade_wallet_revoke_key', which appear to handle related key operations. Usage is implied only through parameter names like 'addKey', but not explicitly stated.

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