okx_add_rule

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 reveals a key behavioral trait: the system auto-classifies rules as hard or soft. This goes beyond the simple 'Add' action and helps the agent anticipate how input will be processed. However, it does not mention persistence, activation, or any side effects, which would have been useful for such an operation.

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 succinct and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies the auto-classification and provides two concrete examples. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no redundant or fluff content.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers input format, behavior, and examples. It does not explain return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. It could have mentioned whether the rule is immediately active or if there are constraints, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 already documents the 'text' parameter with an example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds semantic value by providing different examples and clarifying the auto-classification behavior, which enriches the agent's understanding of what types of text are acceptable. This exceeds the baseline for full 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 action ('Add a new trading rule') and the resource ('trading rule') using natural language. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like okx_list_rules and okx_evaluate_rules by focusing on the creation aspect. The auto-classification detail adds specificity.

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 when to use this tool: when the user wants to add a trading rule in natural language. It provides clear context and examples, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or explicitly compare with alternatives. The presence of sibling tools like 'list_rules' and 'evaluate_rules' suggests distinct uses, but no direct exclusion is stated.

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