okx_get_public_preference_currency

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at read-only nature via '[L:READ]' and mentions a prerequisite, but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response contains.

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 with two phrases, making it concise, but the lack of clarity reduces its effectiveness. It could be more informative without being wordy.

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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain what the tool returns and how to use it. The prerequisite hint is useful, but overall the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke this tool.

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% for the single parameter 'uniqueCode', which is already described as a required unique identifier. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 starts with '[L:READ]' implying a read operation and includes 'CAT:[策略-跟单]' indicating a category (strategy-copy trading), but does not explicitly state what the tool does. It relies on the tool name to infer that it retrieves a public preference currency for a given trader, which is vague for an agent trying to understand its 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 includes '→ 请先调用 agent_catalog', which provides a prerequisite hint (call agent_catalog first), but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling copy trading tools, no explicit context for selection is given.

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