okx_get_orders_algo_pending

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

The description includes a read-only hint '[L:READ]', which is a positive behavioral disclosure. However, with no annotations and no further details, it fails to describe response behavior, pagination, error handling, or side effects. For a read operation, the description should at least state that it retrieves pending algo orders, which is missing. The read-only 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 concise (one line), which is generally positive, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It front-loads the category and read-only hint, but the structure does not provide a clear task statement. While it avoids verbosity, it could be improved by including a brief purpose without adding length.

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 has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and many related sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the scope of 'pending', the types of algo orders included, or how to interpret the results. The prerequisite to 'agent_catalog' is useful but does not compensate for the lack of comprehensive context needed for correct 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema itself fully documents the parameters. The description adds no further explanation or context for the parameters. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 only provides a category label '[交易-委托]' and a read-only hint. The tool name 'okx_get_orders_algo_pending' implies it retrieves pending algo orders, but the description lacks a clear verb and resource statement. It is not a tautology but is too vague to fully clarify the 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 gives a clear prerequisite: '请先调用 agent_catalog', which helps the agent understand an ordering dependency. However, it does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'okx_get_orders_pending' or 'okx_get_algo_orders', nor does it mention when not to use it. The prerequisite is helpful but insufficient for full differentiation.

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