okx_get_option_open_interest

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only hints at read-only via "[L:READ]" but does not explain side effects, permissions, rate limits, or failure modes. The prerequisite hint is minimal.

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 opaque. It uses specialized notation that assumes prior knowledge. While concise in length, it sacrifices clarity and self-containedness, making it less effective.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, the concept of open interest, or any additional context needed for correct usage. The agent is left with many unknowns.

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% (1 parameter fully described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter 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 description does not explicitly state what the tool does. It uses coded tags like "[L:READ]" and "CAT:[统计]" and a prerequisite instruction, but the actual purpose (getting option open interest) is only implied by the tool name. This is vague and not helpful for an AI agent.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like okx_get_open_interest. The instruction to call agent_catalog first is a prerequisite, not usage context. The agent receives no help in distinguishing this tool from similar ones.

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