get_hip4_open_interest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: returns 'timestamped OI snapshots' with mark_price as an implied probability (0..1), and accepts legacy coin forms. No contradictions; provides value beyond 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?

The description is extremely concise, with two sentences that cover purpose, coin format, output nature, and sibling alternative. No unnecessary words.

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 the presence of a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage in the input schema, the description is sufficient. It correctly identifies the output as timestamped snapshots and provides a key sibling alternative for related use cases.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters like start, end, limit, cursor, interval. It only repeats coin format info already in schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'HIP-4 per-side open interest history', and scope 'for a coin'. It provides a specific example and explicitly differentiates from sibling tool get_hip4_outcome, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 hints at usage by mentioning start/end defaults and explicitly states when to use get_hip4_outcome instead for paired-set/display OI. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the 'current' variant (get_hip4_open_interest_current), leaving some ambiguity.

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