ultrade_wallet_revoke_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Revoke' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, irreversibility, effects on active trades, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the operation's impact.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, though brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place.

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, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, error cases, and integration with sibling tools (e.g., 'ultrade_wallet_key_message' for message generation). More context is needed for safe and 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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'message' and 'signature' relate to key revocation). Baseline is 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 'Revoke a trading key' clearly states the action (revoke) and resource (trading key), but it's vague about what 'revoke' entails (e.g., disabling vs. deleting) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'ultrade_wallet_keys' (list) or 'ultrade_wallet_add_key' (add). It's functional but lacks specificity.

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 related tools like 'ultrade_wallet_keys' for listing keys. Usage is implied only by the name and parameters.

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