get_oi_data

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

The description adds useful context beyond annotations by clarifying this is historical data and that intervals match candle data. However, it does not disclose output format, pagination, rate limits, or permission requirements. The openWorldHint annotation is present but does not cover read-only behavior, and the description does not contradict it.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a clarifying note. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the tool's core purpose and interval semantics but does not describe what the response looks like (e.g., an array of timestamp-OI pairs). This gap is notable for a tool without an output schema.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, providing baseline semantics. The description adds slight value by stating 'Same intervals as candle data,' which helps clarify the interval parameter's alignment with another tool, but does not go beyond what the schema already offers (e.g., enums for interval and exchange).

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 historical Open Interest data for derivatives.' This specifies the verb (Get), the resource (historical Open Interest data), and the domain (derivatives), distinguishing it from siblings like get_oi_buildup (current buildup) and get_candle_data (price candles). The added note 'Same intervals as candle data' further ties it to the candle data tool without confusion.

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 usage for historical OI queries but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It does not mention that get_oi_buildup should be used for current OI buildup, nor does it exclude any scenarios. The phrase 'Same intervals as candle data' indirectly references a sibling but stops short of guiding selection.

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