Live Open Interest History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some scope context (coin-specific vs. global) but no additional behavioral details like pagination, output format, or latency. This is adequate but not notably informative.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then adds use cases and constraints. Every sentence contributes to helping the agent decide and invoke the tool.

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 description covers the main invocation choices (coin or global, time window) and conveys the analytical intent. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail on the response shape or granularity could help, but it is not critical for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the defaults and max ('Default 7 days, max 30 days') and the global option ('Omit for global OI'), but it does not add new meaning beyond what the schema 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('historical open interest data'), with explicit scope: any coin on Hyperliquid or global OI. It is not a tautology and is easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like market_historical_oi or live_official_oi, so it loses the fifth point.

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 gives clear use cases ('Best for identifying accumulation/distribution phases, market conviction shifts, and whether a move was backed by positioning'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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