chainvectorOpenInterest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining tool behavior, but it only states that the tool returns OI history with per-venue or aggregated granularity. It does not disclose response format, pagination, default intervals, or any safety guarantees. The interpretive sentence addresses data meaning, not tool behavior.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence immediately stating the resource and scope, and the second adding valuable interpretive context. There is no extraneous wording or repetition of schema details. It is well-structured and quickly readable.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, leaving the description as the primary source of context, but it omits return structure, row fields, and behavior when no data is found. It provides interpretive meaning but not enough for an agent to know what to expect from the call. For a history tool with five optional parameters, this is insufficient.

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?

All five parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description's mention of 'per-venue or aggregated' aligns with the exchange parameter but adds no new detail beyond the schema's 'omit for all'. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 identifies the tool as providing ChainVector open-interest history, with a per-venue or aggregated scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chainvectorLongShort or chainvectorPositioning, which cover other metrics. The interpretive note about OI versus price adds context but the core purpose is 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 implies usage for open-interest analysis by explaining how to interpret OI changes relative to price, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced for comparison, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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