Fetch stored derivatives open interest aggregated across venues with forward fill, filtered by symbols and time range.
Open interest aligned across venues with forward fill, from stored records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_ns | No | ||
| symbols | No | ||
| start_ns | No | ||
| asset_class | No | Which market answers. Inferred from the symbol's source when omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses forward fill and stored-record sourcing, but omits important context such as time-range defaults, empty-result behavior, asset-class inference, and any access or rate-limit constraints.
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 tight sentence with no wasted words. The most important traits are front-loaded.
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 four-parameter analytics tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. Key operational details like time defaults, symbol-pattern behavior, and asset-class inference are missing from the description.
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 only 25%, and the tool description adds no meaning about parameters. The start_ns and end_ns semantics are undocumented in both places, while symbols and asset_class are explained only inside the schema rather than in the description.
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 as open interest aligned across venues, with forward fill, from stored records. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from nearby sibling tools such as basis, perp-basis, 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. Sibling tools like basis, perp-basis, or funding-apr are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.