oi_delta

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

The description discloses the tool is paid (cost ~$0.003) but does not cover other behavioral traits like data freshness, return format, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description partially carries the burden but is lacking depth.

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 one sentence plus cost, front-loaded with key information. No fluff, though the cost could be presented separately for clarity.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the main purpose but lacks detail on output format (e.g., numeric value, percentage) and whether it's absolute or relative change.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the 'lookback window' context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., '1-168, default 24').

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 it computes open-interest change over a lookback window for a specific ticker and venue, distinguishing it from sibling tools like plain `open_interest` or `funding_*` tools.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use information. It merely describes what it does without contextual usage advice.

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