okx_get_transfer_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates a read operation via '[L:READ]', but omits whether it is idempotent, requires permissions, rate limits, or what happens on invalid transfer IDs. The note to call agent_catalog hints at dependency but is insufficient.

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 for clarity. The use of brackets and a pipe may be a tag system, but it lacks a front-loaded action statement. It is concise but not optimally ordered for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's 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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns, how to interpret the state, and why agent_catalog must be called first. The current description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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% for the single parameter 'transferId', which already states it is required and obtained from okx_transfer. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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 is a cryptic tag '[L:READ] CAT:[资金]' which suggests a read operation on funds but does not explicitly state 'check transfer state' or 'get transfer status'. The tool name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no clear verb-resource statement, relying on inference.

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 says '→ 请先调用 agent_catalog' (call agent_catalog first), which is a prerequisite but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools like okx_transfer.

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