okx_get_open_interest_history

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

The description only indicates it is a read operation via '[L:READ]', but no annotations are provided. It does not disclose any other behavioral traits like side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. The description fails to compensate for missing annotations.

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 very short but under-specifies the tool. It is not concise in a helpful way; it lacks essential information. Every sentence should contribute, but this single line does not adequately describe the 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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the historical data contains, the return format, or any usage context. The note to call agent_catalog is insufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (instId, limit, period). The description adds no value beyond that, so baseline score of 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 does not state what the tool does; it only provides a read label and category. The purpose is implied by the name but not clarified. This is minimal and not explicit.

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 is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as okx_get_open_interest or other historical data tools. The suggestion to call agent_catalog is vague and doesn't help with tool selection.

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