okx_predictions_get_market

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The '[L:READ]' label hints at read-only behavior, but it is not standard or explicit. The description does not clarify whether the tool is destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a read-like tool, more transparency is needed.

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 concise, consisting of two short segments. It front-loads the read hint and category. However, it could be slightly more structured by including a clear verb and resource. Despite this, it is not overly verbose and every part serves a 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 complexity of sibling tools (many prediction-related) and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how it fits into workflows. The prerequisite to call agent_catalog is helpful but insufficient. The tool's return value is not described, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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% as the only parameter 'marketId' has a description '市场ID，必填' (Market ID, required). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 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 '[L:READ] CAT:[预测] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog' does not clearly state the tool's purpose. 'CAT:[预测]' indicates a category but no verb or resource. The tool name 'okx_predictions_get_market' implies retrieving a prediction market, but the description fails to explicitly confirm that. It is vague and relies 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 instructs to call agent_catalog first, which provides some usage context as a prerequisite. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like okx_predictions_get_event or outcomes_get_market, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is minimal but present.

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