okx_get_grid_ai_param

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 labels the tool as '[L:READ]' implying read-only behavior, which is useful context not in annotations. However, it does not disclose other important behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, potential side effects (though read-only suggests none), or what data is retrieved. The transparency is minimal.

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, consisting of a single line with tags. While it is concise, it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The use of mixed languages (Chinese and English) and cryptic prefixes reduces its effectiveness, though it is well below the size limit.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide substantial context about what grid AI parameters are, typical usage, and expected return format. It provides none of this. The note to call agent_catalog suggests a dependency but does not explain how. The description is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptions in the input schema (e.g., instId, direction, algoOrdType). The description adds no extra meaning beyond these schema descriptions. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not improve parameter understanding.

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 a cryptic label '[L:READ] CAT:[策略-网格]' which indicates read-only and a category of 'strategy-grid', but does not clearly state in plain language what the tool does. The name 'okx_get_grid_ai_param' suggests retrieving AI parameters for grid trading, but the description fails to confirm this purpose explicitly. It is vague and relies on domain knowledge.

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', which tells the agent to call agent_catalog first. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., okx_get_grid_orders_pending, okx_create_grid_order). No alternative tools or context for selection are mentioned.

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