okx_get_subaccount_api_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is read-only via '[L:READ]' and notes a prerequisite, but does not explain what happens if the prerequisite is not met, whether the API key is returned in plain text, or any other behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits). This is insufficient for a safe and informed invocation.

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 this brevity is due to omission rather than efficiency. It lacks essential information such as a clear purpose statement and detailed behavior. The structure includes a category tag and prerequisite, but it does not earn its place because it fails to provide a complete picture.

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 (no annotations, no output schema, many sibling tools with overlapping names), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the result, or how it differs from similar subaccount tools. The prerequisite note is a helpful hint, but overall the description leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 100% description coverage (the only parameter, subAcct, is described in the schema as '子账户名称。必填'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high, baseline is 3. The description does not improve or detract from the schema's clarity.

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 includes a category tag and a prerequisite note, but does not explicitly state what the tool does. The agent must infer from the name 'okx_get_subaccount_api_key' that it retrieves a subaccount's API key, making the purpose vague and relying on the tool name rather than the description.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('请先调用 agent_catalog') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like okx_get_subaccount_list or okx_get_subaccount_balance. There is no explanation of the tool's specific role within the subaccount context, leaving the agent without clear usage criteria.

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