Coinglass: getCoinglassOpenInterestHistory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the data is historical and for options, which provides context beyond annotations but does not disclose any behavioral traits like data source, refresh rate, or limitations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single sentence that is direct and to the point. It conveys the essential purpose without extraneous information. While it could be slightly more detailed, it is appropriately concise for a simple read-only data retrieval 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should compensate by indicating the nature of the returned data (e.g., time series, exchanges covered). It does not mention pagination behavior despite the schema having page and limit parameters. The description is minimal and leaves the agent without enough context on what to expect from the response.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (symbol, page, limit) and has 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 provides historical open interest data for options across exchanges. It specifies the resource (historical open interest for options) and implies a data retrieval function. While it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, the distinct data type (options open interest) sets it apart from other Coinglass tools like getCoinglassBitcoinEtfList.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are many other Coinglass and financial data tools, but the description does not mention when to prefer this one or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are noted.

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