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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, open-world read, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the return shape — a market-level summary of coins and net OI per regime plus per-coin price change, OI change and current OI — which matters because no output schema exists.

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-loaded with the core definition, then the four regime mappings, then the return payload. The parenthetical gloss ('a rally with no new buyers') earns its space by conveying interpretation that an agent cannot infer from the name alone.

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 no output schema and no title, the description carries the burden of explaining results and does so for both the summary and per-coin levels. It stops short of noting the default 240-minute window or any data-source/freshness caveats, which would round it out.

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?

There is a single parameter with full schema coverage ('Look-back window in minutes'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's reference to values being measured 'over the window' is consistent but adds no new meaning such as allowed ranges or default behavior.

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 first sentence states a specific verb-plus-resource computation — per-coin positioning regime derived from price direction crossed with open interest. The four named regimes make it unambiguous how this differs from raw siblings like get_open_interest or get_oi_board, which report the underlying series rather than the cross.

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 regime definitions imply when the tool is useful (interpreting whether a move is new longs, short covering, new shorts or a long flush), but nothing explicitly says when to prefer it over get_open_interest_history or get_long_short_ratio, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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