okx_get_event_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only includes a read hint via '[L:READ]' but does not explain side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 (one line), but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It uses non-standard tags that are not self-explanatory, and the prerequisite instruction is not front-loaded. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 lack of output schema and the complexity of the tool ecosystem (many siblings), the description does not explain the return value, the meaning of 'events' in this context, or how it relates to the prerequisite agent_catalog. Complete guidance is missing.

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?

There is one parameter (seriesId) with 100% schema coverage. The schema already describes it as required and provides a description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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:[预测]' but lacks a clear verb and resource. It does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., 'Get list of events for a series'). The purpose is vague and relies on the name and tags for interpretation.

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 includes a prerequisite instruction ('→ 请先调用 agent_catalog'), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many sibling tools (e.g., okx_get_event_series, outcomes_list_events). No differentiation or context for selection is given.

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