okx_get_spread_orders_history_archive

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 labels the tool as L:READ (not a standard annotation) and provides no details on behavior, such as what the archive contains, pagination, rate limits, or whether it is destructive. Minimal disclosure.

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 very short (one line with labels) and front-loaded with key identifiers. However, it sacrifices informativeness 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 large set of sibling spread tools, the description fails to clarify the difference between this 'archive' tool and others like okx_get_spread_orders_history. It does not explain return values or the nature of the archive, and the prerequisite is vague.

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 one parameter ('sprdId') with a description ('价差合约ID'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 indicates it is a read operation (L:READ) and categorizes it under '策略-价差' (strategy-spread), but it does not clearly state what data it retrieves (historical archived spread orders). The name suggests history, but the description is vague.

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?

It mentions a prerequisite ('请先调用 agent_catalog') but does not specify when to use this tool over siblings like okx_get_spread_orders_history or okx_get_spread_orders_pending. No when-not or alternative guidance.

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