okx_get_recurring_sub_orders

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

No annotations provided; description only includes the '[L:READ]' tag, hinting at read-only behavior. No disclosure of destructive potential, authorization needs, or side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond the tag.

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?

Description is extremely short, but no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, failing to convey essential information. Acceptable conciseness but at the cost of completeness.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only 2 parameters, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, pagination, or typical use context. The prerequisite to call agent_catalog is helpful but insufficient.

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% with parameter descriptions in the schema. Description adds no parameter-level information; baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters.

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?

Description includes '[L:READ]' indicating a read operation, but does not explicitly state the verb or resource. The name 'get_recurring_sub_orders' provides purpose, but the description adds little clarity. It vaguely categorizes as '策略-网格' (Strategy-Grid) without differentiation from siblings.

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 instructs to 'call agent_catalog first', which is a prerequisite but not usage guidance. No information on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or context for decision-making.

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