okx_get_deposit_withdraw_status

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

No annotations are available, and the description only includes '[L:READ]' which suggests a read operation but is not confirmed. There is no disclosure of side effects, data scope, or prerequisites beyond the cryptic instruction. The description fails to provide behavioral context.

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 not well-structured or informative. It uses non-standard formatting (brackets, Chinese text) which may confuse an agent. The instruction is not a clear description of the tool's function.

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 no parameters or output schema, the description should still explain what the tool returns and how it fits into the workflow. The instruction to call agent_catalog implies a dependency, but the tool's purpose and output are completely unexplained. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivial. According to the scoring guidelines, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description does not add parameter semantics, but none are needed.

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 '[L:READ] CAT:[资金] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog' is cryptic and does not clearly state that the tool retrieves deposit/withdrawal status. The name hints at it, but the description does not confirm the purpose or what resource is being accessed. It is vague and incomplete.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like okx_get_deposit_history or okx_get_withdrawal_history. The instruction to call agent_catalog first is a prerequisite but not a usage guideline.

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