outcomes_list_events

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only marks the tool as read via '[L:READ]' but fails to mention pagination, side effects, or rate limits. The behavior is largely inferred from the schema.

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 poorly structured. It uses cryptic labels and a non-English directive without front-loading the core purpose. It sacrifices clarity for brevity, making it under-specified.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, this description is critically incomplete. It does not explain return values, scope (e.g., 'events' of what type), or how it differs from other list/search tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline 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 cryptic ('[L:READ] CAT:[预测] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog') and does not clearly state the verb and resource. It hints at a read operation on predictions but provides no explicit 'list events' purpose. The tool name 'outcomes_list_events' gives more clarity 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The phrase '请先调用 agent_catalog' suggests a prerequisite but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'okx_predictions_list_events' or 'okx_predictions_search_events'.

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