okx_get_spreads

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation via '[L:READ]' but does not disclose any other behaviors such as pagination, return format, or what happens when no parameters are supplied. The description is minimal and inadequate for a tool with 4 optional parameters.

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 but not well-structured. It uses cryptic codes and Chinese without clear English explanation. Conciseness should aid clarity, but here it sacrifices understanding. The structure is fragmented and not front-loaded with a clear tool purpose.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling spread tools, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain what a 'spread' is in this context, how it differs from other spread tools, what the output will look like, or any constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Since the schema already describes each parameter in Chinese, the description provides no additional value for parameter semantics.

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 uses cryptic tags like '[L:READ]' and 'CAT:[策略-价差]' and Chinese text. It vaguely indicates a read operation related to spreads but does not clearly state 'Get spreads' or explain what the tool does in plain English. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the purpose, especially compared to sibling tools with clearer names like okx_get_spread_ticker.

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 instruction '请先调用 agent_catalog' provides a prerequisite step, which is useful, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling spread tools (e.g., okx_get_spread_ticker, okx_get_spread_orderbook). The agent is left to infer usage without differentiation.

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