okx_get_withdrawal_history

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only includes '[L:READ]' as a custom label, which is not standard. It lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication, data scope, or what happens upon 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 very short, which is good, but includes non-standard formatting like '[L:READ] CAT:[资金]' and a prerequisite instruction. It could be clearer and more structured.

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 no output schema and minimal description, the tool lacks important context such as what data is returned (e.g., withdrawal status, dates), pagination behavior, or any date range limitations. For a history tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters (ccy, limit) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 name clearly indicates retrieving withdrawal history, and the description adds '[L:READ] CAT:[资金]' specifying it's a read operation in the funds category, which helps with basic understanding. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similar tools like okx_get_deposit_history.

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 states '→ 请先调用 agent_catalog' (please call agent_catalog first), implying a prerequisite but giving no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit context for usage or exclusions.

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