COINGLASS_OPEN_INTEREST

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 11-word sentence that is perfectly front-loaded and contains no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description omits details about output format (besides prettyFormat), behavior when exchange is omitted, and how history data is structured. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 description coverage is only 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context only for 'includeHistory' (via 'optional OI history'), leaving 'period' entirely unexplained. It does not compensate for the missing schema 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('open interest exchange list and optional OI history'), and the scope ('for a symbol'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like funding rate or liquidations, which cover different metrics.

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 (e.g., COINGLASS_FUNDING_RATE) or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not the context of its use.

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