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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently enumerates the response contents (OI in coins/USD, market share %, 1h/4h/24h changes, OI/volume ratio, market totals), giving a clear picture of what the tool computes. It does not disclose data freshness or sort order, but the behavioral disclosure is strong for a read-only reporting 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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the tool's core purpose ('Per-venue open-interest ranking'), then efficiently lists the returned metrics. There is no filler or redundancy; every clause adds value.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does an excellent job of enumerating the output fields and scope. It could add ordering/freshness details or explain 'market totals' more explicitly, but the essential information needed to understand and invoke the tool is present.

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 0% and the only parameter is a bare string 'symbol'. The description compensates by specifying it is a perp symbol and providing a concrete example (BTCUSDT), which gives meaningful guidance on the expected value format.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Per-venue open-interest ranking for a perp symbol' and enumerates the exact metrics returned. The phrase 'per-venue' and 'per exchange' clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_open_interest and get_open_interest_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 implies usage: call when you need aggregated OI broken down by exchange, with change % and USD flow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some routing to inference based on sibling names.

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