okx_get_my_lead_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only has a cryptic '[L:READ]' tag possibly indicating read-only, but no explicit behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, data scope, rate limits) are disclosed.

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 overly cryptic (tags and Chinese phrase). It lacks clear structure and the single line does not efficiently convey tool purpose or usage.

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's complexity (copy trading domain, many sibling tools) and lack of output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return value information, full prerequisites, and contextual details needed for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 100% for the two optional parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 uses cryptic tags like '[L:READ]' and 'CAT:[策略-跟单]' and tells to call 'agent_catalog' first, but does not clearly state what the tool does. The name 'get_my_lead_history' suggests retrieving lead trading history, but the description fails to confirm this purpose.

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 indicates a prerequisite ('请先调用 agent_catalog' i.e., call agent_catalog first), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other lead/copy trading tools. No when-not or explicit usage context is given.

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