open_interest

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

No annotations are provided, yet the only behavioral disclosure is the cost note 'PAID ~$0.001 via x402.' It omits whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any rate limits. The cost detail adds value but leaves major behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds cost. No wasted words, front-loads the core function.

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 no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and cost but lacks details on return format, pagination, common errors, or use cases. For a simple two-parameter tool, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'venue' and 'ticker' having clear examples. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Venue, e.g. binance' and 'Ticker, e.g. BTC', so 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 clearly states 'Current open interest for a ticker on a venue' which specifies the verb (get), resource (open interest), and scope (current). It distinguishes from siblings like oi_delta which likely tracks changes. However, it doesn't explicitly state it fetches a single snapshot, and the term 'current' could be clearer.

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 versus alternatives like oi_delta or funding_arb. The description provides no context for selecting this tool over siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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