okx_get_orders_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only indicates a read operation via '[L:READ]', but lacks details on rate limits, data scope, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal disclosure.

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 (one line with tags), but it is under-specified. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity, which is not 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 that there is no output schema and the tool retrieves potentially complex historical orders, the description fails to specify what data is returned or any important context like pagination or filtering. It is incomplete.

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 its two parameters (limit and instType), so the description does not need to add extra meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 uses a tag format '[L:READ] CAT:[账户]' which implies it's a read operation for accounts, but does not explicitly state that it retrieves orders history. The name itself is clear, but the description adds little value.

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 note '→ 请先调用 agent_catalog' indicating that agent_catalog should be called first, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like okx_get_order or okx_get_orders_pending.

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