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 read-only safety, and the description adds useful non-obvious behavior: 5-minute resolution, 24-hour deltas, and the exact regime categories per symbol. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not mention data freshness, coverage limits, or any edge cases.

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 carrying full value: the first front-loads the exact user intent, the second compactly enumerates the return fields and regime labels. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a zero-param, read-only tool, this covers the trigger, scope, resolution, delta fields, and four possible regime labels. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it or interpret its output is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds that the result is per symbol across major perpetuals, which is sufficient context for a parameter-less call.

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 starts with a specific trigger ('Call this when the user asks...'), identifies the resource (open interest for major perpetuals), and specifies the output contract (5-minute OI, 24h deltas, four-regime regime labels). This clearly separates it from siblings like funding heatmap or liquidations by tying it directly to leverage positioning.

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?

It gives explicit conditions for use: leverage entering/leaving the market, OI changes, or longs/shorts building. It does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of full routing advice.

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