ultrade_wallet_signin

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. 'Sign in to trading account' implies a mutation (authentication action) but doesn't specify if it creates a session, requires specific permissions, has side effects like rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves security-sensitive operations.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's under-specified rather than concise—it could benefit from more detail without becoming verbose, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 (authentication tool with 4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like session management, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context 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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), so the schema does most of the work. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain the relationship between 'message', 'signature', and 'data', or why 'referralToken' is optional. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides adequate documentation.

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 'Sign in to trading account' states a clear action (sign in) and target (trading account), but it's vague about what 'sign in' entails compared to siblings like 'ultrade_wallet_signin_message' or 'ultrade_wallet_keys'. It doesn't specify if this establishes a session, authenticates for trading, or something else, making it less distinct.

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. For example, it doesn't explain if this should be used before other wallet tools, how it relates to 'ultrade_wallet_signin_message', or any prerequisites like needing a signed message first. This leaves the agent without context for proper selection.

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