okx_get_event_markets

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 hints at being a read operation via '[L:READ]', but discloses no other behavioral traits such as authorization needs, rate limits, or return format. This is minimal disclosure 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 extremely concise, but the use of cryptic brackets like '[L:READ]' and 'CAT:[预测]' and the arrow format reduces clarity. It is not well-structured for quick parsing, though it is short.

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 large number of sibling prediction-related tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what event markets are, what the output looks like, or how this tool differs from similar ones. The prerequisite is helpful but insufficient for a complex toolset.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'seriesId' (described as '事件系列ID。必填'), so the schema already documents it well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 '[L:READ]' and 'CAT:[预测]' to indicate a read operation in the predictions category, but it does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves event markets. The tool name implies the resource, but the description is vague and does not clarify what an 'event market' is. It is better than a tautology but lacks specificity.

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 '→ 请先调用 agent_catalog', which is an explicit prerequisite: the agent must call 'agent_catalog' first. This is a clear usage guideline. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'okx_get_event_events' or 'okx_predictions_get_event_markets', so it could be stronger.

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