fetch_locks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('Stringified JSON response') and failure case ('or None if failed'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what specific data the trade locks contain.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter and return sections are structured but could be more concise since the input schema already documents the absence of parameters. The mention of 'ctx' parameter feels somewhat redundant given the schema coverage.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic information about what the tool does and its return format. However, for a data-fetching tool in a trading context, more context about what 'trade locks' represent and when this operation is needed would be valuable, especially with no annotations to provide safety/behavioral context.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description mentions 'ctx (Context): MCP context object for logging and client access' which adds context about an implicit parameter, though this appears to be standard MCP boilerplate rather than tool-specific semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('current trade locks'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'fetch_balance' or 'fetch_trades' beyond the specific data type being retrieved.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool name suggests it fetches trade locks specifically, there's no explicit mention of when this operation is needed or how it relates to other fetch operations 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.