Retrieve available copy trading instruments for swap or futures contracts on the OKX exchange.
[L:READ] CAT:[策略-跟单] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "okx_get_copy_instruments"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instType | No | 产品类型 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only includes a read hint '[L:READ]' but no further behavioral details such as scope of data, rate limits, or return format. The burden falls entirely on the description, which 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 it is economical with words. However, it lacks front-loaded critical information. The structure could be improved by stating the tool's function first.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what data the tool returns, how to use the parameter effectively, or any related context such as prerequisite tool usage beyond a cryptic instruction.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'instType', which is documented as '产品类型' (product type). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 description includes a category label '[L:READ]' and 'CAT:[策略-跟单]' but does not explicitly state what the tool retrieves. 'get_copy_instruments' implies copy trading instruments, but the description is vague and tautological to the 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 description instructs to call agent_catalog first, which is a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. No differentiation is made among the many OKX tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.