okx_get_exchange_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only indicates a read operation via '[L:READ]' and a category, but lacks details on what the tool does internally, what data it accesses, or any side effects. The minimal disclosure 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 short, which could be considered concise, but it sacrifices clarity. The use of brackets and arrows (e.g., '[L:READ]', '→') is somewhat structured, but the overall message is ambiguous. It could be both more concise and clearer.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool appears to list exchanges, the description should explain what the list contains (e.g., exchange names, IDs) or provide a sample. It only mentions a prerequisite, leaving the agent without enough context 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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, but per the guidelines, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4. No further semantics 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 is cryptic: '[L:READ] CAT:[资金] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog'. It does not explicitly state that this tool returns a list of exchanges; the name suggests it, but the description fails to confirm. The category and prerequisite are unclear, making the purpose vague.

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 only provides a prerequisite ('请先调用 agent_catalog'), which implies a certain order of operations. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions.

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