okx_get_contracts_taker_volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It labels the tool as read-only via '[L:READ]', which is a behavioral trait, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, data scope, or effects. The description is insufficient for an AI agent to understand usage behavior.

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 shorthand and Chinese tags. It lacks clear structure and does not efficiently convey meaning, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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 absence of an output schema and a minimal description, the tool remains poorly specified. The 3 parameters are documented but the return value and exact data (contracts taker volume) are not explained. Sibling tools exist but are not differentiated; the tool feels incomplete for an AI agent.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (ccy, begin, end) in Chinese. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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 uses cryptic tags like '[L:READ]' and 'CAT:[统计]' which vaguely hint at readonly and statistics, but does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves taker volume for contracts. The purpose is unclear without interpretation, and it fails to distinguish from siblings like 'okx_get_taker_volume' or 'okx_get_taker_flow'.

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 provides a prerequisite ('→ 请先调用 agent_catalog'), indicating a need to call 'agent_catalog' first, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mentions 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.