Intraday open interest and leverage regimes (10 major perps)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), yet the description still adds meaningful behavior: 5-minute resolution, the exact deltas returned, and the five regime labels the output can take. It omits any note about how fresh the data is, which symbols are covered beyond 'major perps', or rate limits, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads the trigger conditions, the second front-loads the return shape. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Given no output schema and no parameters, the description does the heavy lifting by specifying resolution, deltas, and regime categories, which is enough to decide relevance and interpret results. A brief note on the symbol universe or refresh cadence would close the remaining 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly signals that results are returned per symbol rather than requiring a symbol argument. No further parameter meaning is needed or missing.

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 names a specific resource (5-minute open interest with 24h OI and price deltas) and a distinctive analytical output (four-regime read per symbol), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of naming which sibling (e.g. get_funding_heatmap or get_positioning) to prefer, so differentiation is implied by the regime framing rather than stated.

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?

Gives three concrete trigger questions – leverage entering/leaving, OI changes, longs vs shorts building – which is strong when-to-call guidance. It offers no when-not-to-call conditions and does not point to a competing tool for adjacent questions like funding or liquidations.

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