Open interest history

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds useful details like the default hourly granularity and 24-hour window, but does not mention limits, pagination, or data source behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes: the purpose, an interpretive heuristic, and the default time window. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only time-series tool with a mostly described schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. The main remaining gap is that it does not clarify return structure or `until` semantics, but an agent can call it correctly from the provided information.

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 coverage is 75%, with the coin parameter well documented and interval enum/defaults supplied. The description restates the default hourly/24h behavior but adds no clarification for the undocumented `until` parameter or timestamp formats, so it only marginally exceeds schema 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 clearly identifies the resource and scope: open interest history for a market, expressed in coins and USD. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as price_history or funding_history, but the purpose is still unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied through the interpretive note about rising/falling open interest, suggesting positioning analysis. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like price_history or market_snapshot, nor does it give exclusions.

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