okx_get_orders_history_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It includes a read hint '[L:READ]' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. More context is needed.

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 lacks essential information. It is not concise because it omits critical purpose and usage details, making it more of a placeholder than a well-structured description.

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 (archived orders history) and the presence of many similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. No output schema is provided, and the description fails to explain what 'archive' means, how results are ordered, or how this tool differs from others.

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%, and the input schema descriptions adequately explain 'limit' and 'instType'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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:[交易]' does not explicitly state what the tool does. It suggests a read operation and a trading category but lacks a verb and resource. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'okx_get_orders_history' or 'okx_get_orders_archive'.

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 alternatives. The only instruction is to call 'agent_catalog' first, which is a prerequisite but does not clarify usage context or exclusions.

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