okx_get_sfp_products

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

The description indicates the tool is a read operation ('[L:READ]'), which conveys it is non-destructive. However, with no annotations, it lacks further behavioral details such as idempotency, rate limits, or return value characteristics.

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 but at the expense of clarity. It front-loads a read label and category, but the single sentence could be improved by adding purpose and context.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description could still benefit from explaining what 'SFP products' are, what the tool returns, and how to use the results. The prerequisite hint is insufficient for completeness.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline 4 is appropriate since no parameter documentation 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 is vague, stating only '[L:READ] CAT:[金融]' and a prerequisite to call agent_catalog. It does not clearly state what the tool retrieves or how it differs from other tools, leaving the purpose ambiguous.

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 '→ 请先调用 agent_catalog', which provides some guidance, but it offers no information on when to use this tool versus alternatives among many sibling tools.

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