获取加密货币情绪指标

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says the tool retrieves data; it does not disclose whether results are snapshots or time series, how '主动买卖数据' is defined, whether authentication or rate limits apply, or what the response structure looks like.

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 sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the key identifying information and every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It does not explain the meaning of '主动买卖数据', the relationship between inst_type and long/short ratio, the expected output format, or the inconsistency between the default period '1h' and the documented granularity '1H'.

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 each parameter already has a description and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about OKX sentiment data but does not clarify parameter-specific details, such as the casing mismatch between the default '1h' and the documented '1H', or whether SPOT is meaningful for the leverage long/short ratio.

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 names a specific verb '获取' and a specific resource: OKX cryptocurrency leverage long/short ratio and active buy/sell data. This makes its purpose clear and distinguishes it from related siblings like crypto_funding_rate, crypto_open_interest, and fear_greed_index, which cover different metrics.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crypto_funding_rate, crypto_open_interest, or sentiment_side. The description simply states what data it returns and provides no exclusions, preferred contexts, or routing hints among the many crypto-related sibling tools.

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