okx_get_option_oi_ratio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description includes '[L:READ]', which may indicate a read-only operation, but this is ambiguous and not elaborated. No further behavioral traits (e.g., safety, idempotency, rate limits) are disclosed. The description does not contradict any annotations because none exist.

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 (one line), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential information and uses a non-English phrase. Every sentence must earn its place, but this description does not provide enough value for its brevity.

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 (options OI ratio with timestamp parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, what the ratio represents, or any nuances. With many sibling tools, a more complete description is necessary for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so all three parameters (ccy, end, begin) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, when coverage is high, baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 minimal and in Chinese. It does not explicitly state what the tool does beyond the name 'okx_get_option_oi_ratio', which hints at retrieving the option open interest ratio. However, no verb or resource description is provided, making it vague. Sibling tools like 'okx_get_option_open_interest' suggest a family of related tools, but no differentiation is given.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only instruction is '请先调用 agent_catalog' (please call agent_catalog first), which is a prerequisite rather than usage direction. There is no mention of when or when not to use this tool, or any comparison to sibling tools.

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