okx_get_my_lead_positions

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

The description marks the tool as '[L:READ]' indicating a read-only operation, which is a behavioral trait. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or other side effects beyond the read hint. This leaves significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 metadata tags and a prerequisite instruction. While efficient, it could be clearer with natural language phrasing. The structure uses brackets and an arrow, which is compact but not fully intuitive.

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 domain (lead positions in copy trading) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description lacks context about what lead positions are, the output format (no output schema), and when this tool is appropriate. The prerequisite instruction is helpful but insufficient for complete understanding.

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?

The input schema has full description coverage (100%) for the single optional parameter instType, including its enum values and a note that leaving it blank returns all. The description adds no additional parameter information, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles semantics.

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_my_lead_positions' implies retrieving the user's lead positions, and the description adds a category tag suggesting copy trading. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool does or differentiate it from siblings like okx_get_lead_trader_positions, making the purpose somewhat 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 includes a prerequisite instruction to call agent_catalog first, which provides one usage guideline. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., okx_get_my_lead_history) or when not to use it, leaving the agent with minimal decision support.

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