okx_cancel_all_rfqs

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 mentions '[L:WRITE]' indicating a write operation but fails to highlight that canceling all RFQs is destructive. The prerequisite is noted, but overall transparency is minimal.

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, using non-standard tags and a non-English phrase. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and structure, making it difficult for an AI agent to understand the tool's function.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide complete context. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or the exact scope of 'all RFQs'. The sole prerequisite is insufficient for a destructive action tool.

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 schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. The prerequisite note is unrelated to parameters.

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 does not explicitly state the tool's purpose beyond what the name implies. It uses cryptic tags like '[L:WRITE] CAT:[策略-RFQ]' and a Chinese prerequisite, which obscures clarity. The tool name 'cancel_all_rfqs' suggests canceling all RFQs, but the description fails to articulate this directly.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like okx_cancel_rfq or okx_cancel_batch_rfqs. The description only includes a prerequisite ('请先调用 agent_catalog') without any context about appropriate use cases.

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