Historical Open Interest

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: hourly snapshot granularity, notional USD denomination, per-coin vs global aggregation, and the maximum range. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate.

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 efficient sentences, with the core purpose and key constraints front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 read-only lookup with well-documented parameters, the description provides the essential missing context: historical hourly granularity, notional USD units, and the 30-day bound. A return-format example would be nice, but the description is sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The schema already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, including examples and defaults. The description reinforces the 'filter by coin vs global aggregate' distinction but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('historical hourly open interest snapshots'), and the unit ('notional USD'). It also distinguishes this historical tool from live siblings by explicitly saying 'historical hourly'.

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 clearly implies historical use cases and states the 30-day max range, but it does not explicitly contrast with live alternatives like live_oi_history or live_official_oi. An agent must infer when to choose this over those siblings.

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