okx_evaluate_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is non-mutating through 'Evaluate' and 'Returns', but it does not explicitly state that no orders are placed or that no state changes occur. It also omits potential dependencies on market data or error behavior, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately communicates the return behavior. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

For a tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and what it returns. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., boolean vs string), but the core decision outcome is clear. Given the low complexity, this is nearly complete, with a minor gap around return value typing.

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 description clarifies that the 'signal' parameter represents the proposed trade direction, which aligns with the schema's enum and description. However, the 'instrument' parameter is not mentioned in the description, and schema coverage is only 50%. The description adds some interpretive value but does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 ('Evaluate') and identifies the resource ('hard rules') and the outcome ('whether a proposed trade would be allowed or blocked'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like okx_list_rules and okx_add_rule by focusing on evaluation against current market state rather than listing or modifying rules.

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 the tool is used to check if a proposed trade signal is allowed by hard rules, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., running a copilot or generating a plan), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is apparent but not elaborated.

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