Crypto open interest (OKX)

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds no further behavioral context such as authentication needs or rate limits, but it does not contradict the annotations. Baseline score for good annotation coverage.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core function. No wasted words, easily digestible.

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?

For a simple read tool with two parameters and good annotations, the description covers the essential inputs and output concept. It does not detail the response format, but that is standard knowledge for open interest data. Minor gap but overall effective.

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 50% with instId having a helpful example and instruction to omit for all instruments. The description reinforces the parameter usage by stating 'or all of an instType.' The instType enum is self-explanatory. Significant added value beyond 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves open interest for a specific swap/futures instrument or all of a given instrument type. This is a specific verb+resource combination, and the tool is uniquely identified among siblings by its focus on 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?

The description implicitly indicates when to use (when needing open interest data) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use. No comparisons to other crypto tools are provided, so guidance is adequate but not enriched.

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