live_oi_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains default/max hours and optional output format, but lacks details on data accuracy, caching, or response structure. Adequate but not thorough.

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 compact sentences, no redundancy. The most critical information (what, purpose, defaults) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It does not discuss the response format or pagination, but that is partially compensated by the compact structure and default values.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that omitting 'coin' returns global OI, and that 'hours' defaults to 7 days (168 hours) with a 30-day max. This goes beyond the schema's bare parameter descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves historical open interest data per coin or globally. The use cases are described (accumulation/distribution, conviction shifts). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like market_historical_oi or live_official_oi, though the 'historical' aspect implies a distinction.

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?

Provides a clear best-use case: identifying market sentiment via OI changes. Also mentions default and max duration. Does not explicitly advise against use in other contexts or list alternatives, but the guidance is effective.

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