okx_get_rfqs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it is a read operation via [L:READ] and a category, but omits details about data returned, pagination, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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, using structured tags and a clear prerequisite note. It is front-loaded and avoids verbosity, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about what RFQs are, how the state filter affects results, and return format. The prerequisite is helpful but overall completeness is low.

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% coverage with clear descriptions and enums for the single parameter. The description adds no additional meaning, aligning with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as reading RFQs (Request for Quotes) with a category tag, but it does not clearly specify the scope (e.g., user's own RFQs, all pending, etc.) or differentiate it from siblings like okx_get_quotes. It is adequate but lacks precision.

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 instruction to call agent_catalog first, which provides some guidance on order of use. However, it offers no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like okx_get_rfq_trades or okx_get_quotes, and no scenarios of applicability.

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