Oi Snapshot

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: the per-symbol one-call constraint, the 10-call cap, the absence of keyless OI history with a concrete 404 endpoint, and the default symbol selection behavior. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone communicate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by precise constraints and a concrete example. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the honest note about the 404ing history endpoint is a valuable guardrail rather than filler.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description handles the key invocation concerns: per-symbol behavior, call limits, default behavior, and a clear example. It is nearly complete, but the implicit treatment of `top` leaves a small semantic gap for an agent deciding how to construct a valid call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the `symbols` parameter, including its None default and an example, and it mentions the N cap. However, it never directly explains the `top` parameter, leaving its relationship to top-volume symbol selection to be inferred rather than stated.

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 identifies the tool as an open interest snapshot and immediately clarifies that it is a per-symbol endpoint, which makes the resource and scope clear. It stops short of explicitly contrasting it with sibling tools, though the per-symbol and no-history details help distinguish it from broader market or kline tools.

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 clear usage context: it is a per-symbol endpoint, each symbol costs one call, N is capped at 10, and when symbols is None top-volume futures symbols are used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the constraints are specific enough to guide selection.

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