okx_amend_profit_sharing_ratio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not explain the impact of amending the ratio, required permissions, reversibility, or any side effects. The label '[L:WRITE]' is redundant given the tool name 'amend'. This is a severe gap.

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 short but cryptic and not self-contained. It front-loads labels that are not universally understandable. While concise in word count, it sacrifices clarity and usefulness.

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's role in copy trading profit sharing and the lack of output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool achieves, what the agent should expect after calling it, or how it integrates with the suggested prerequisite agent_catalog.

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% with one required parameter 'profitSharingRatio' described as '分成比例。必填'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—no format, range, or examples. It fails to enhance agent understanding.

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 is vague and does not clearly state what the tool does beyond 'amend profit sharing ratio'. The label '[L:WRITE]' and category 'CAT:[策略-跟单]' provide hints but lack clarity. It fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like okx_get_profit_sharing_details or okx_get_copy_settings.

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 only guidance is '请先调用 agent_catalog', which indicates a prerequisite but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, scenarios, or exclusions. No context on use cases or when not to use it.

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