ultrade_wallet_signin_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses no behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, if it has side effects (e.g., generating a cryptographic signature), rate limits, or error conditions. The vague 'Generate message' leaves the agent guessing about critical behavior.

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 overly terse and under-specified for a tool with parameters and no annotations, bordering on cryptic rather than concise. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail.

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 2 parameters with nested objects, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover what the generated message is used for, output format, error handling, or integration with wallet workflows. For a tool in a security-sensitive context (wallet sign-in), this is inadequate.

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 50% (only 'data' object properties are described, 'customMessage' lacks description). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'message' entails, how 'data' and 'customMessage' interact, or provide examples (e.g., message format, use of enums like 'ALGORAND'). With low coverage and 2 parameters, it fails to compensate for schema gaps.

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 sign in data' restates the tool name 'ultrade_wallet_signin_message' without adding specificity. It vaguely indicates generating a message but doesn't clarify what type of message (e.g., authentication, signature request) or its purpose in the wallet sign-in flow. Compared to siblings like 'ultrade_wallet_signin' (likely performs sign-in) and 'ultrade_wallet_key_message' (likely generates key-related messages), it fails to distinguish its unique role.

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., whether sign-in data must be prepared first), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'ultrade_wallet_signin' or 'ultrade_wallet_key_message'. The description offers no context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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