okx_get_instrument_tick_bands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only provides cryptic tags and does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature (though '[L:READ]' hints), permissions, or rate limits.

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 but not informative. It uses non-standard tags and fails to convey purpose, making it under-specified rather than 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 one parameter, no output schema, and a cryptic description, the tool is poorly documented. It lacks explanation of return values and prerequisite (agent_catalog).

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% (one parameter with enum and description). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with tags like '[L:READ]' and 'CAT:[公共]', and a directive to call agent_catalog. It does not clearly state that the tool retrieves instrument tick bands for options, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like okx_get_instruments.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The instruction '请先调用 agent_catalog' is vague and does not explain context or exclusions.

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