okx_get_grid_orders_history

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 includes '[L:READ]' to indicate read-only, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no orders exist. For a history tool, this 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 extremely short, but this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity. It uses cryptic abbreviations (e.g., 'L:READ', 'CAT:') that may not be universally understood. A longer, human-readable explanation would be more helpful. The structure is not front-loaded with key information.

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, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also omits details like default time range or maximum results. The schema is simple, but the missing output information makes the tool incomplete for effective use.

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% with parameter descriptions in Chinese. The tool description adds no additional meaning or formatting details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 applies since the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 name 'okx_get_grid_orders_history' clearly indicates the tool retrieves history of grid orders. The description adds '[L:READ]' hinting it's a read operation and 'CAT:[策略-网格]' suggesting category. However, it lacks an explicit English statement of purpose, relying on the name and cryptic tags.

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 '请先调用 agent_catalog' (please call agent_catalog first) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling grid tools like okx_get_grid_orders_pending or okx_get_grid_sub_orders. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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