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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the burden well: it discloses the output granularity (one row per venue per bucket), the 'measured' provenance tag, and the non-obvious behavior that minutes is 'snapped to a fixed set of windows.' It omits auth/rate-limit/pagination traits, but for a read-only historical query this is solid disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then routes to alternatives, then documents each parameter. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, yet the description still usefully names the key columns. Symbol format, minutes bounds, and sibling alternatives are all covered; the only minor gap is that it doesn't state the default of 240 explicitly (though the schema carries it).

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it gives the symbol format ('BASEUSDT (BTCUSDT)'), the minutes range (5 to 20160 / 14 days), and the important snapping behavior that the schema does not express. The default value lives in the schema and is not repeated, which is fine.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Open interest over time for one contract, one row per venue per time bucket.' It also names the two siblings it is NOT (get_oi_board for the current snapshot, get_open_interest for every contract), so an agent can disambiguate without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use it to see how positioning built up or unwound; for the current snapshot with shares and 1h/4h/24h changes use get_oi_board, for every contract at once get_open_interest.' Both the use case and the alternative selectors are given.

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