Get Polymarket open interest

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: the semantic meaning of open interest, the mutually exclusive input requirement, and the exact validation error messages an agent may encounter.

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 concept definition before args/returns/errors, and every section is compact. The Args list duplicates the schema descriptions almost verbatim, which is the only redundancy.

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?

Covers concept, input modes, output format, return shape, and error cases; an output schema exists so the return-shape mention is a bonus rather than a necessity. The only gap is the absence of guidance on when to prefer this over related market-data siblings.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the OR-relationship for slug/condition_ids and the response_format enum, so the Args block largely restates structured data. It adds minor value by repeating the exact error strings and clarifying that slug is resolved to a conditionId, but the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get the OPEN INTEREST ... for one or more markets') and immediately parenthesizes the concept ('total value of outstanding positions'), which disambiguates it from siblings like get_market_holders, get_orderbook, and get_positions.

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 clearly states how to identify the target markets (condition_ids OR slug) and that slug is resolved to a conditionId, but it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to sibling tools such as get_market_holders or get_market, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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