get_futures_open_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the data resource and does not mention read-only behavior, default date/asset/market behavior, result shape, limits, or any other runtime traits. The operation's behavior is largely left to the schema defaults.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it easy to scan and parse. It loses the top score because the slash construction 'open interest / open positions' is slightly redundant and some usage context would have made the description more useful.

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 simple getter with three optional, well-documented parameters, the one-line description plus schema is minimally viable for selecting and invoking the tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves return format and behavioral expectations unstated, so completeness is only adequate.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters with meaningful descriptions, including defaults for date and market and the 'all assets' behavior of asset. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the structured schema already carries that burden, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a concrete data resource ('open interest / open positions') scoped to futures markets, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_market_data or get_history. It falls short of 5 because it does not explicitly name what it is not, and 'open positions' is slightly ambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: whenever futures open interest or open position data is needed. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many market-data sibling tools, so the applicability must be inferred.

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