okx_get_asset_bills_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The '[L:READ]' tag indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not elaborate on rate limits, authentication, or side effects. It adds some value beyond the schema but remains 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 very short and front-loads the read hint and category tag. It includes a prerequisite instruction in a single line. While cryptic, it is concise and avoids unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or provide context on the scope of the data (e.g., date range, asset types). The prerequisite hint is useful, but overall the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 fully describes the single 'limit' parameter (integer, min 1, max 100, default 100). The description adds no additional semantic meaning to this parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool name and description clearly indicate it is for retrieving asset bills history, and the '[L:READ]' tag specifies it is a read operation. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling tools or explain what exactly 'asset bills history' entails.

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 explicitly states '→ 请先调用 agent_catalog' (call agent_catalog first), which is a clear prerequisite for using this tool. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the prerequisite guidance is valuable.

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