ultrade_wallet_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get trading keys' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements (though parameters hint at it), rate limits, what 'trading keys' entail (e.g., API keys, permissions), or the response format. It lacks critical context for safe and effective use.

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 overly concise at three words, leading to under-specification rather than efficiency. It fails to front-load essential information, such as what 'trading keys' are or why this tool is needed. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase lacks substance.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., key details, format), error conditions, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool with authentication parameters and complex sibling relationships, this minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions ('Login wallet address', 'Login session token'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 trading keys' restates the tool name 'ultrade_wallet_keys' in a tautological manner. It doesn't specify what 'trading keys' are, what resource they belong to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'ultrade_wallet_add_key' or 'ultrade_wallet_revoke_key'. The purpose is vague rather than specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing authentication via 'ultrade_wallet_signin'), context for retrieving keys, or relationships with sibling tools that manage keys (add/revoke). The description provides zero usage context.

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