get_global_open_interest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses exactly what is returned: aggregate USDC locked in outstanding positions platform-wide. This adds semantic clarity beyond the tool name, though it doesn't discuss potential limitations or frequency of updates.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information ('total open interest') and adds a clarifying detail ('USDC locked in outstanding positions'). No wasted words.

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 (zero params, no output schema), the description sufficiently answers what the tool does and what the returned value means. It even specifies the currency unit (USDC). It doesn't cover edge cases like the possibility of zero open interest, but that's not necessary for this simple metric.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the empty schema fully covers this aspect.

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 the verb 'Get' and the specific resource: total open interest across all Polymarket markets. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'platform-wide' and 'all markets', which differentiates it from get_market_open_interest and get_oi_history.

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 implies clear usage context: use when you need the aggregate platform-wide open interest. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'all markets' scope provides natural differentiation from market-specific siblings. Slight deduction for not naming alternatives.

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