get_oi_buildup

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

The only annotation is openWorldHint, which is vague and provides no concrete behavioral context. The description adds no details about side effects, data sources, rate limits, or whether the tool is safe/read-only. For an analysis tool, this lack of transparency is a gap.

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, direct sentence that communicates the core purpose without any filler or redundant information. It earns its place with zero waste.

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 lacks an output schema, and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., symbols, values, formats). Given the tool likely returns analytical data, the description is too sparse to be complete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 100%, with both parameters fully described via enums and short descriptions. The tool description repeats the enum values but doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Get OI Buildup analysis' and enumerates the four categories (Long Buildup, Short Buildup, Short Covering, Long Unwinding). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from broader tools like get_oi_data, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.

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. The description only states what it does, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it difficult for an agent to choose it appropriately among sibling tools.

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