pulse_exchange_oi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses the gross both-sides convention ('Gross both-sides convention (matches HyperTracker/hl.eco headlines; halve for one-sided OI)') and a caching behavior ('Cached up to 120s'). These are critical for interpreting the data correctly. No contradictions.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the data returned, explaining a key behavioral detail, and offering usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the data scope (exchange-wide OI by DEX, long/short split), the reporting convention (gross both-sides), and caching behavior. It does not describe the output structure, but the agent can infer it from the context. It is nearly complete for a simple data retrieval 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 covers the single parameter 'useToonFormat' with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. It could have explained what 'toon format' entails, but it did not.

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 clearly states the tool returns current open interest for the whole exchange with long/short split by DEX. It uses specific terms ('current open interest', 'by dex', 'long/short notional split') and addresses the resource exactly. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'market_historical_oi' or 'live_official_oi', which could cause confusion for an agent.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use for 'what's the OI on Hyperliquid / on xyz?', market-size questions, and long-vs-short balance checks.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the provided guidance is actionable.

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