get_market_open_interest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the data is from the Open Interest subgraph, but does not mention data freshness, rate limits, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. For a read operation, more details are expected.

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 highly concise with two sentences. It immediately states the primary function and then adds a distinguishing remark. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, so the description should cover what the response contains. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or structure of the market data. For a tool returning a list of markets, this lack of completeness is a significant gap.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema, earning the baseline score 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 action ('Get the top Polymarket markets') and the specific metric ('ranked by open interest'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting that no other Polymarket subgraph tracks open interest, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (when open interest data is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given the sibling list includes 'get_global_open_interest', more guidance on the distinction would improve score.

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