get_oi_near_capLists Hyperliquid perps that are currently at the open interest cap — new long positions cannot be opened. Use as a blacklist to avoid getting rejected on entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the key behavioral fact that 'new long positions cannot be opened' on these perps, which is beyond what the annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediate usage advice. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence 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?
No output schema exists, but the description implies the return type (list of perps). It could be more explicit about the format (e.g., symbol names or IDs), but for a simple blacklist tool, the context is mostly sufficient.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers them fully (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining what the output represents (list of perps at OI cap), which aligns with the baseline of 4 for no-param tools.
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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' and identifies the resource as 'Hyperliquid perps that are currently at the open interest cap,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_funding_rates or get_liquidation_clusters.
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 explicit guidance to 'Use as a blacklist to avoid getting rejected on entry,' which tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the narrow purpose makes that less critical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools are specialized, but several pairs have fuzzy boundaries: e.g., get_funding_rates vs get_top_funding_rates, get_basic_macro vs get_macro_context, get_simple_iv vs get_options_iv. An agent could easily select the wrong one.
Most tools follow a 'get_X' pattern with descriptive noun phrases. There are a few exceptions like 'create_api_key' and 'search_markets', but overall the convention is consistent and readable.
With 47 tools, the server is overloaded. While the domain is broad, this many tools makes discovery and selection difficult for an agent, reducing coherence.
The tool set covers an impressively wide range: macro data, funding, prediction markets, OI history, whale tracking, risk analytics, position sizing, backtesting, and signal generation. It leaves no obvious gaps for a crypto trading assistant.