agent_stop_loss_master

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates write permission ([L:WRITE]) and describes batch operations, but does not disclose potential risks (e.g., irreversible cancellation, impact on existing orders) or any rate limiting or auth requirements.

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 very concise—a single line with clear structure: permission, category, and three operations separated by slashes. No redundancy, but could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness.

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 the tool has three distinct modes and no output schema, the description should explain what each mode returns or expects. It only lists the actions. For example, what does 'preview' output? No behavioral details for each mode beyond the basic action.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by providing Chinese translations for enum values and clarifying that instId is optional ('不填则对所有持仓操作'). No additional format constraints or dependencies are explained beyond the schema.

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 lists three distinct modes: preview (查看风控状态), set stop-loss (设止损单), and cancel all (全部撤单). It distinguishes from sibling tools like okx_place_order or okx_cancel_order by focusing on batch stop-loss and global cancellation. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'manage' or 'control' for the overall purpose.

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 modes imply usage (e.g., use preview to check status, set_stop_loss to impose loss limits), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like okx_place_algo_order or okx_cancel_order. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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