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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves non-zero balance assets and includes remaining/available amounts, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format details.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

For a read-only tool with one well-documented parameter but no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what data is retrieved. However, it lacks details about response structure, pagination, or error handling that would be helpful for an agent.

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 the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Retrieve'), resource ('assets', 'balance', 'available amount'), and scope ('in the OKX trading account'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on balance retrieval rather than positions, orders, or configuration.

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?

The description implies usage for checking account balances but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like account_positions or account_position_risk. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a retrieval operation ('Retrieve'), implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly state permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds some context about its role in workflow sequencing.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its function.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and usage, but lacks details on behavioral traits like authentication needs or response format, which could be important for a configuration tool.

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% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score above 3 due to the lack of parameters.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('current OKX account configuration'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings that might also retrieve account information (like account_balance or account_positions), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'before using all other tools.' This gives clear context for its usage relative to alternatives, though it doesn't specify when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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

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. It states the tool 'obtains' risk data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, or what 'overall holding risk' entails (e.g., metrics, format, or scope). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves financial data.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 of financial risk data and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'overall holding risk' includes (e.g., risk metrics, calculations, or output format), leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool effectively.

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 100% description coverage, documenting the single optional parameter 'instType' with its types and default behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced coverage.

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 ('Obtain') and target resource ('overall holding risk of the OKX account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'account_positions' or 'account_balance', which might also provide risk-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to siblings such as 'account_positions' or 'account_balance', leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: it returns positions based on account mode (net or long/short) and orders them in reverse chronological order by ctime. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format, which are significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clarifying details about account modes and ordering. Every sentence earns its place by adding context without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and behavioral context (account modes, ordering) but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain the return values, error handling, or security requirements, which are important for a tool that retrieves financial data. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context is minimal for a tool with potential complexity.

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 the schema fully documents the three optional parameters (instType, instId, posId) with their types, defaults, and descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as how filtering works or interactions between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('retrieve') and resource ('account positions'), specifying it's for OKX positions. It distinguishes from siblings like account_balance (which retrieves balance, not positions) and account_position_risk (which likely focuses on risk metrics). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from close_positions or other position-related tools beyond the retrieval action.

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?

The description implies usage by mentioning net vs. long/short mode contexts, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like account_position_risk or close_positions. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the retrieval purpose versus mutation/analysis 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.

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 states this is a cancellation operation (implying mutation/destructive action) but doesn't mention permissions required, whether cancellations are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to partially filled orders. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a financial trading tool.

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 that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point.

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?

For a financial trading cancellation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like authentication requirements, error conditions, what 'incomplete' means, or what the tool returns. The combination of mutation operation with minimal description creates significant gaps.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage but not providing additional semantic context.

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 ('Cancel') and target resource ('an incomplete order on OKX'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'close_positions' or 'get_order_list', but the verb 'cancel' is specific enough to distinguish it from most siblings.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'close_positions' or 'get_order_list'. It mentions 'incomplete order' but doesn't explain what qualifies as incomplete or when cancellation is appropriate versus other order management actions.

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

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. While it mentions 'liquidate at market price' (implying immediate execution), it doesn't address critical aspects like whether this is irreversible, what permissions are required, potential rate limits, confirmation requirements, or what happens if the market is illiquid. For a high-stakes financial operation, this is insufficient.

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 that immediately conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

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?

For a high-risk financial operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after liquidation (confirmation? balance updates?), error conditions, or the irreversible nature of the action. The agent lacks critical context about this destructive operation.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 specific action ('liquidate all positions'), target resource ('designated trading product'), method ('at market price'), and platform ('on OKX'). It uses precise terminology that distinguishes it from other trading tools like place_order or cancel_order.

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?

The description implies this tool should be used when wanting to exit all positions in a specific instrument, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like partial position closing. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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

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. It states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no incomplete orders exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with account data.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second directs to external schema details. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though the external reference slightly reduces self-containment.

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's complexity (5 parameters, account data access) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the scope ('incomplete orders') and points to schema details, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling or data freshness, leaving room for improvement.

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 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all 5 parameters with defaults and examples. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying filtering for 'incomplete orders', which aligns with the 'state' parameter but doesn't provide additional context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('incomplete orders under the current OKX account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_orders_history' or 'get_trade_order', which likely retrieve different order types or historical data.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_orders_history' or 'get_trade_order'. It mentions retrieving 'incomplete orders' but doesn't clarify if this includes partially filled orders or only live ones, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the 7-day time constraint for completed orders and the 2-hour retention for canceled incomplete orders, which are crucial for understanding data availability. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds important behavioral context (2-hour retention for canceled orders). The third sentence efficiently directs to an external resource for output details. It's appropriately sized with minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the time window and order state constraints but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'limit' parameter in schema), and error scenarios. The reference to an external schema helps, but the description itself doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema and annotations.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and defaults. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., combining instType with instFamily). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool retrieves completed orders from OKX placed within the last 7 days, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('completed orders'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_order_list' by focusing on historical completed orders rather than current orders, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description implies usage by specifying the time window (last 7 days) and order states (completed), and mentions canceled orders are only reserved for 2 hours, which provides some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_order_list' or 'get_trade_order', leaving the agent to infer based on the historical focus.

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

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 only states it 'retrieves' details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if parameters are invalid. The reference to an external schema suggests output behavior is documented elsewhere, but the description itself lacks essential operational 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence directs to external documentation efficiently. However, the reference to an external schema might be considered slightly indirect for immediate understanding.

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 of a financial trading tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about authentication, error handling, rate limits, and doesn't explain the relationship to sibling tools. The external schema reference partially compensates but doesn't cover operational aspects.

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 the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retrieve order details') and target resource ('on OKX'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_order_list' or 'get_orders_history', which appear to serve related purposes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_order_list' or 'get_orders_history'. It mentions reading a schema for output details but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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. It describes what data is retrieved but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a market data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. The first sentence covers core functionality, the second adds ranking capability. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning ranking earlier.

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?

For a market data tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, how results are formatted, whether pagination exists, or any error scenarios. The agent would need to guess about return values and behavioral characteristics.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters with their types, defaults, and brief descriptions. The description mentions 'ranking of coins' which aligns with the sortBy parameter's purpose, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool retrieves market data including price snapshot, bid/ask prices, and 24-hour trading volume, with specific mention of ranking coins by increase or volume. It uses specific verbs like 'retrieve' and 'get' with clear resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like account_balance or get_order_list, which focus on account/order data rather than market data.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for market analysis, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_trade_order or place_order. There's no explicit when/when-not usage information, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

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 but fails completely. It doesn't mention that this is a destructive/mutative operation that executes trades, doesn't discuss authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after order placement. For a complex trading tool with 17 parameters, this is critically inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though that purpose is inadequately specified. From a pure conciseness perspective, it's maximally efficient.

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 high complexity (17 parameters, trading operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, behavioral constraints, or usage context. For a financial trading tool with significant implications, this minimal description is dangerously incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 17 parameters thoroughly. The description adds zero parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Place a new order on OKX for trading' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name and title. It provides no specific information about what the tool actually does beyond the obvious, and fails to distinguish this tool from sibling trading tools like cancel_order or close_positions.

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?

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools like cancel_order or get_order_list would be more suitable. There's no usage context provided at all.

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