okx_dex_api_methods

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 that the tool returns 'a complete method inventory, including basic descriptions and usage instructions', which is useful. However, it does not mention potential traits like pagination, rate limits, or that this is a read-only operation, though that is implied by 'Get'. The disclosure is adequate but not deep.

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, front-loaded with the primary action 'Get all API method lists'. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple, parameterless tool.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it states what is returned, includes descriptive content, and clarifies the purpose. It does not mention how to get details for individual methods, but that is covered by the sibling okay_dex_api_method_detail. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function and expected output.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so the description has nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the return content rather than 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'all API method lists and related documentation supported by OKX DEX API'. It explicitly names the exchange and API type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like okx_methods and gate_methods. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 discovering available methods ('helping developers understand available functional interfaces'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over okx_dex_api_method_detail or other method-list siblings. No exclusions or alternative references are given, but the context signals the intended discovery use case.

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