get_open_interest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Get') and mentions return format. However, it does not disclose potential behavioral aspects like rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements.

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 front-loaded with a clear first sentence but includes additional educational content about OI interpretation that, while useful, increases length. The structured Args/Returns sections are helpful, but the overall verbosity is higher than necessary for a simple tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, the parameter format, and the return content (contracts and USD value). No critical information appears missing for effective agent use.

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 input schema only defines 'symbol' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful context by providing examples (e.g., BTCUSDT) and stating it expects a trading pair symbol, significantly improving parameter understanding.

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 states 'Get open interest for a futures symbol,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., technical indicators) by focusing on a distinct market metric, and provides interpretive context that clarifies the tool's unique purpose.

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 explains what open interest is and how to interpret trends, which implicitly guides when to use it (e.g., for futures market sentiment). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives among the many sibling indicators.

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