okx_get_rfq_counterparties

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The '[L:READ]' tag indicates a read-only operation, but no other behaviors (e.g., side effects, rate limits) are mentioned. This is insufficient given the lack of annotations.

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, which is concise, but it lacks clarity. It includes structured tags that are informative, but the brevity comes at the cost of explaining the tool's function. A more balanced description would be better.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide a complete understanding of the tool's purpose and usage. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with only a vague hint about prerequisites. The description 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 tool has no parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4, as no further meaning is needed.

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 includes tags like '[L:READ]' and 'CAT:[策略-RFQ]' but does not clarify that it retrieves RFQ counterparties or what that entails. The purpose is implied by the name but not clearly communicated.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('请先调用 agent_catalog'), but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. Without context on the tool's role or exclusions, the agent lacks guidance for proper invocation.

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