okx_get_signal_bots_history

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only includes a '[L:READ]' tag hinting at read-only behavior. It does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as data volume, rate limits, or side effects. The agent is left guessing about what this tool might do beyond a read operation.

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: a single line with relevant tags and a prerequisite note. It is front-loaded and lacks unnecessary verbiage, though it sacrifices completeness 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 complexity of the signal bots domain and the presence of many sibling tools (e.g., 'okx_get_signal_bots_pending', 'okx_get_signal_positions'), the description fails to explain what 'history' means, what the output looks like, or how it differs from related tools. It is insufficient for an agent to confidently select this tool.

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 description coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context, but according to the rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 only provides tags ('[L:READ]', 'CAT:[策略-信号]') and a prerequisite note ('→ 请先调用 agent_catalog'), but does not explicitly state that this tool returns the history of signal bots. The name is somewhat clear, but the description adds minimal value beyond the name.

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 instructs to call 'agent_catalog' first, which is a usage prerequisite, but it does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'okx_get_signal_bots_pending' or 'okx_get_signal_positions'. There is no comparative context.

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