获取加密货币情绪指标

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does indicate a read-only operation ('获取') and names the data content, which conveys the basic behavior. However, it lacks details on response format, data granularity scope, or any rate limits/pagination, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise, with no extraneous words or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description identifies the data types but does not explain the return structure, typical use cases, or how it complements other sentiment/crypto tools. For an agent to invoke and interpret results autonomously, this is insufficient context.

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%, with each parameter (period, symbol, inst_type) having its own description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 states '获取OKX加密货币杠杆多空比与主动买卖数据', clearly specifying the action (get), data source (OKX), and data types (leverage long/short ratio and active buy/sell). This distinguishes it from sibling sentiment tools like fear_greed_index or crypto_prices.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, preferred contexts, or comparisons to siblings. The agent is left without decision criteria for tool selection.

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