okx_run_copilot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context: the number of agents, the return fields, and the API key requirement. However, it does not clarify side effects such as whether 'suggested action' remains advisory or could execute trades, nor does it mention rate limits or latency.

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 and front-loaded with the action and scope. It concisely lists return values and the critical prerequisite without wasted words.

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 moderate-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output fields, and a key prerequisite. It is adequate for invocation, though it could explicitly state that it performs analysis only and does not place orders, distinguishing it from okx_place_order.

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 coverage is 75%, so the description does not need to compensate heavily, but it also adds little parameter-level meaning. It does not explain how enabledSkills or disabledAgents affect the '4-agent' analysis, though the schema already describes those. The description's mention of the API key is a prerequisite, not a 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 clearly states a specific action ('Run full 4-agent AI analysis') and resource (macro, technical, risk, and portfolio manager agents). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like okx_run_single_agent by emphasizing 'full 4-agent', and lists concrete outputs (signal, conviction, summary, reasoning, suggested 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 provides clear usage context by defining the tool as 'full 4-agent AI analysis' and mentioning the prerequisite LLM API key (MINIMAX_API_KEY). It implies when to use this over single-agent tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions.

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