okx_get_spread_trades_public

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. The tag '[L:READ]' might hint at read-only behavior, but it is non-standard and not explained. There is no mention of rate limits, pagination, data scope, or whether authentication is required. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's side effects or constraints.

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 (one line), but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It does not earn its place because it is not informative. A concise description should still be clear and actionable, which this is not.

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 is incomplete. It fails to specify the return format (e.g., trade list), volume of data, or how to interpret results. The mention of 'agent_catalog' suggests a dependency that is not explained. The tool's complexity is low (1 param), but the description still leaves significant gaps.

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% for the single parameter 'sprdId', and the schema already provides a description in Chinese. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema offers. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 for high coverage, and this description does not improve upon it.

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 contains a tag '[L:READ]' and a category label 'CAT:[策略-价差]', but does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves public spread trades. The name implies it, but the description is vague and does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'okx_get_spread_trades'. The Chinese text '→ 请先调用 agent_catalog' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 only provides a prerequisite instruction ('call agent_catalog first') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the non-public version or other spread data tools. No context about authentication, data freshness, or typical use cases is provided.

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