ultrade_wallet_withdraw_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so, offering no information on whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, what permissions are required, what the generated message is used for (e.g., signing, display), or any side effects like rate limits or errors. The description is minimal and lacks essential behavioral context.

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, which is appropriately sized. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, as it lacks necessary details. While front-loaded, it doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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 (2 parameters with a nested object, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, or output, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly in the context of sibling tools like 'ultrade_wallet_withdraw'.

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 'customMessage' has a description), and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions 'withdrawal data' but does not clarify what the 'data' object contains or how parameters like 'loginAddress', 'tokenAmount', or 'fee' relate to message generation. This leaves most parameters semantically unclear beyond their schema types.

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 withdrawal data' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'ultrade_wallet_withdraw_message' without specifying what type of message is generated or its purpose. It lacks a clear verb+resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ultrade_wallet_withdraw' or 'ultrade_wallet_key_message'.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no indication of when this tool is appropriate compared to other wallet or withdrawal-related tools in the sibling list.

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