get_hip3_open_interest_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns 'timestamped OI snapshots' and mentions time range and aggregation, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds essential information (purpose, case-sensitivity, reference to instrument listing). Perfectly sized.

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 high schema coverage, presence of output schema, and annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, key constraints (case-sensitivity), and a pointer to related tool for enumeration. No gaps for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 100%, so description does not need to add extensive parameter details. It reiterates case-sensitivity and gives examples, which adds marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no significant additional semantic enrichment.

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?

Clearly states 'Get HIP-3 open interest history over a time range', identifying the specific resource (HIP-3 open interest) and action (history retrieval). The mention of case-sensitive symbols and examples further clarifies scope, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_open_interest_history and get_hip3_open_interest.

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?

Provides guidance on symbol case-sensitivity and examples, and references get_hip3_instruments for a full list. However, does not explicitly contrast with other open interest history tools (e.g., get_open_interest_history for non-HIP-3), though the naming implies the context. Still, sufficient for an agent to determine proper use.

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