okx_place_spread_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only labels the tool as '[L:WRITE]' indicating a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or order lifecycle details (e.g., confirmation, partial fills). This is inadequate for a trading tool.

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 fails to convey essential information. It uses cryptic tags and a Chinese prerequisite. Brevity is not beneficial when it omits core purpose and usage details. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the two fragments do not adequately describe the tool.

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 of placing a spread order (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is entirely incomplete. It does not explain what a spread order is, how parameters interact, or what return values to expect. The reliance on a separate tool (agent_catalog) further fragments understanding.

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 for all 5 parameters, including enums and types. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the category and prerequisite. Since the schema already documents parameters well, a baseline 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 vague: it includes '[L:WRITE] CAT:[策略-价差]' indicating a write operation and strategy-spread category, but does not explicitly state that the tool places a spread order. The name 'okx_place_spread_order' implies the purpose, but the description fails to confirm or elaborate, making it unclear for an agent.

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 '请先调用 agent_catalog' (call agent_catalog first) as a prerequisite, providing minimal usage guidance. However, it offers no comparison to sibling tools like okx_place_order or okx_place_algo_order, nor does it specify when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The guidance is insufficient.

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