Get Open Interest Analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned (beyond what the output schema may imply), whether it reflects current or historical values, or any limitations such as rate limits or data freshness. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It follows a clear verb+resource pattern. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, but conciseness itself is not penalized when the content is clear.

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 presence of an output schema covers return values, but the tool has no annotations and no usage guidance. For an analysis tool among many similar siblings, the description is too sparse to help an agent decide when to call it or what behavior to expect. It is minimally adequate for a one-parameter read-only tool but leaves significant gaps.

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 description for 'symbol' is minimal ('Trading symbol'), and context indicates schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description adds no meaning to the single parameter—it does not explain what 'symbol' refers to, how it influences the analysis, or any format expectations. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does 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 'Get open interest analysis and trends' clearly identifies the specific resource (open interest) and the action (get). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gex_analysis or get_vanna_analysis, which target different market metrics. However, the phrase 'analysis and trends' is somewhat generic and does not specify what kind of trends or analysis is included.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analysis tools (e.g., get_flow_analysis, get_skew_analysis). There is no mention of preferred contexts, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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