okx_get_sfp_order_history

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It only indicates read-only via '[L:READ]' but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as data scope (e.g., time range, filtering), idempotency, or rate limits. Minimal transparency.

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 (one line) but lacks substantive detail. It is front-loaded with the read tag, but the crucial information about what the tool returns is missing. Conciseness does not compensate for incompleteness.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple tool, the description should at least explain what SFP orders are, the scope of history returned, and any prerequisites beyond agent_catalog. It fails to provide a complete picture, especially compared to similar tools like okx_get_orders_history.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as there are none, but it also lacks return context. However, parameter semantics dimension does not penalize missing return info.

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 vague and relies on the tool name for purpose. It only states '[L:READ] CAT:[金融]' and instructs to call agent_catalog, but does not clearly explain what the tool does beyond being a read operation for SFP order history.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is to call agent_catalog first, which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline. Lacks context for appropriate versus inappropriate usage compared to sibling tools like okx_get_orders_history.

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