okx_get_stable_rewards_history

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

No annotations are provided. The description includes a [L:READ] tag hinting at read-only behavior, but no further details about safety, side effects, or rate limits. Behavioral transparency is minimal.

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, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information about the tool's purpose and behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description should still explain the tool's function and return value. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with insufficient context to infer the tool's behavior.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The description does not add parameter semantics, but that is acceptable given zero parameters. Baseline 4 applies.

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 contains a tag indicating read-only and a category, plus an instruction to call agent_catalog. It does not explicitly state that this tool retrieves stable rewards history, relying on the name. Purpose is vague and not clearly explained.

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 suggests a prerequisite (calling agent_catalog) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings, or what context it is appropriate for. Minimal guidance.

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