okx_get_settlement_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only indicates the tool is read-only and public, but does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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 overly cryptic, using tags and a Chinese instruction that may not be immediately understandable. It front-loads the read/public hint but lacks clear structure and substantive content, making it less effective than a simple English statement.

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 output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about what settlement history is, how to interpret results, and any constraints. The minimal description does not adequately compensate for these gaps, leaving the agent under-informed.

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%, so all parameters are described in the input schema. However, the descriptions are in Chinese (e.g., '标的指数'), which may reduce clarity for non-Chinese speakers. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 is cryptic and does not clearly state the tool's purpose. It includes a tag '[L:READ] CAT:[公共]' and instructs to call 'agent_catalog' first, but does not explicitly say that the tool retrieves settlement history. The name provides a strong hint, but the description fails to confirm or explain the core function.

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 vaguely suggests a prerequisite ('→ 请先调用 agent_catalog') but does not provide clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools for similar historical data, no differentiation is given.

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