live_official_oi

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses data source, not derived from live positions, returns hourly snapshots with specific fields, and gives time range limits. Lacks details like pagination or empty result behavior, but overall transparent for a read-only tool.

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 sentences: first sentence defines tool and source; second sentence gives usage guidance and constraints. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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?

Description covers purpose, source, data fields, usage scenarios, and time constraints. Lacks explicit mention of return data structure (array vs object) but is adequate given lack of output schema. Could be more precise but sufficient.

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% with good descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds overall context but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns 'Official per-dex open interest for a coin', sourced from Hyperliquid's Info API, and explicitly says it is 'not derived from live_positions'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like live_oi_history by specifying authoritative source.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use when an agent needs venue-reported ground truth, per-dex breakdown, or wants to cross-check computed OI against official numbers.' Also mentions default 7 days and max 30 days, providing clear context for when to use.

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