agent_asset_center

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 only includes '[L:READ]' to indicate read-only operation, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a non-destructive tool, minimal transparency is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (one line with tags and Chinese) but at the cost of clarity for non-Chinese speaking agents. It could be better structured with a clear English summary. While not verbose, the brevity may hinder comprehension.

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 three parameters all documented, and a read-only operation, the description combined with the schema provides adequate context for a simple overview tool. However, the lack of an output schema and any indication of response format reduces completeness. Sibling tools with similar complexity also lack output schemas, so this is average.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'mode' with enum values explained). The description adds little beyond the schema—only repeating the 'three-in-one' concept. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 that this tool provides a consolidated view of assets, including fund distribution, earning, and subaccounts, labeled as a 'three-in-one' command center. The 'L:READ' tag indicates read-only purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like okx_get_balance or okx_get_asset_valuation by being a unified overview, though the use of Chinese and tags may be slightly obscure.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusion criteria or scenarios where other tools (e.g., okx_get_balance, okx_get_subaccount_balance) are more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from context.

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