okx_get_deposit_lightning

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only includes a cryptic '[L:READ]' hint (likely read-only) but does not explicitly confirm safety or disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, permissions, or side effects.

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 at the cost of clarity. It is not front-loaded with useful information; instead it contains vague tags and a prerequisite call. The conciseness is harmful rather than helpful.

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 a simple parameter and no output schema, so complexity is low. However, the description is insufficient: it does not explain what the tool returns or how to use it correctly, and the prerequisite to call agent_catalog is unexplained.

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 a single parameter 'ccy' with a description already in Chinese (currency, e.g. USDT, required). Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema.

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 is cryptic: '[L:READ] CAT:[资金] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog'. It does not clearly state that this tool retrieves a lightning deposit address. The purpose is only inferable from the name and parameter, but the description is minimal and ambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is '请先调用 agent_catalog' (please call agent_catalog first), but it does not explain why or when this is necessary, nor does it distinguish from sibling deposit/withdrawal tools.

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