okx_get_algo_orders_history

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. The [L:READ] tag weakly implies a read operation, but there is no mention of data range, pagination, rate limits, or any behavioral traits. For a 3-parameter tool, this 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 very short but not concise in a useful way—it uses cryptic tags and a one-line instruction. It fails to front-load clear information about tool purpose or behavior.

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 3 parameters (2 required, all enums), no output schema, and many sibling tools dealing with orders, the description is critically incomplete. It does not differentiate this tool from similar ones or explain the scope of 'history'. The dependency on agent_catalog is not enough.

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% and the schema already describes parameters with enums and Chinese labels. The description adds zero extra meaning beyond a dependency note. With high coverage, baseline is 3, but the description provides no value, hence 2.

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 relies on tags like [L:READ] and a Chinese category label rather than a clear statement of what the tool does. 'CAT:[交易-委托]' suggests algo orders, but the verb+resource is missing. The agent must infer from the tool name.

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 guideline is '→ 请先调用 agent_catalog', which indicates a dependency but does not explain when to use this tool over siblings like okx_get_algo_orders or okx_get_orders_algo_pending. No alternative or context is provided.

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