获取合约持仓量

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it gets data, which is an obvious read operation, but does not disclose any limitations, data freshness, authentication needs, or output characteristics. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the core function and a use case with no redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

The tool is very simple with one parameter and no annotations, so the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks any detail about the return structure or potential limitations (e.g., supported symbols, time range), which is important since no output schema exists to fill the gap.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'symbol' with a description, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no information about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional meaning is conveyed beyond the schema.

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 retrieves open interest data for OKX perpetual contracts, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like okx_funding_rate, though the unique focus on open interest provides implicit differentiation.

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 provides a clear use case ('用于判断市场资金流向' – to judge market capital flow direction), giving context on when to use it. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so excluded explicit exclusions keep it at a 4 rather than 5.

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