agent_risk_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication requirements (API key, read-only), risk type (READ), and expected response size (∼2KB structured summary). This provides good transparency beyond a simple 'read-only' hint, though it lacks details on potential error states or rate limits.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (功能, 场景, 关键词, etc.) and each part adds value. It is slightly verbose but efficient, conveying all necessary information without redundancy. The format is easy to scan for key details.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral traits (auth, read-only, response size), and even provides a workflow linking to downstream tools. This ensures an agent can correctly select and invoke the tool without additional context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description explicitly notes '参数：无'. Since there are no parameters to document, the description adds no additional semantic burden. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

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 tool's function as a one-click risk dashboard covering position risk ranking, total margin rate, liquidation warnings, and funding rate expiry reminders. It specifies the trigger scenario ('Agent answering 'how risky am I now?') and uses distinct keywords, differentiating it from sibling tools like okx_get_account_position_risk or okx_get_risk_state.

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 explicit usage scenarios (risk check, health inspection, liquidation alert) and includes a workflow linking to other tools (agent_quick_trade, agent_pnl_report). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so no exclusion guidance is given.

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