okx_get_opt_summary

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

The description labels the tool as read-only with '[L:READ]', but beyond that, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response characteristics. With no annotations, the burden is on the description.

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 fails to be informative. It includes a cryptic label and a prerequisite command, but lacks clarity. Conciseness is not valuable at the expense of understanding.

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 (option summary) and lack of output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, under what conditions, or how to interpret the data. Prerequisite alone is not sufficient.

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 parameters 'uly' and 'expTime' fully described. The description adds no additional meaning, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 '[L:READ] CAT:[公共] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog' is cryptic and does not clearly state that the tool retrieves an option summary. The purpose is only weakly implied by the tool name. No verb-resource clarity.

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 ('call agent_catalog first') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like okx_get_option_trades or okx_get_option_open_interest. No explicit use cases or alternatives.

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