get_open_interest_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'get open interest analysis and trends', adding no information about side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or data scope. The tool is likely read-only, but nothing confirms this.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it could be slightly longer to include more details without becoming verbose. It is front-loaded with the key concept, but overly terse.

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 that this is a financial analysis tool among many similar ones, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the analysis includes (e.g., delta levels, put/call ratios, historical trends), how output is structured, or how to interpret results. An output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description alone leaves gaps.

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 description does not mention the symbol parameter or any details about its usage. While the schema provides a description ('Trading symbol'), the tool description adds no extra meaning. With only one parameter, the lack of mention is a missed opportunity to clarify its role (e.g., required, default value).

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 'Get open interest analysis and trends' clearly identifies the resource (open interest) and action (get), but 'analysis and trends' is vague. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on open interest, but could be more specific about what exactly is provided (e.g., historical changes, current distribution).

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_gex_analysis, get_skew_analysis, etc. There are no prerequisites or context provided, making it hard for an agent to decide when this is appropriate.

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