get_cme_gold_open_interest

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

Even without annotations, the description fully covers behavioral side effects: it states the observation is appended to local first-seen history and explicitly says the call never changes a chart, Pine script, alert, or order. This goes well beyond a basic function summary and tells the agent exactly what persistent effects to expect.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the primary purpose, the second clarifies scope and history behavior, and the third draws the safety boundary. There is no redundant or promotional language.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers source, scope, persistence behavior, and non-effects. It does not explicitly describe the return shape, but the simple aggregate value is strongly implied; this is a minor gap only.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description still adds context about the specific data source and scope.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get CME's Daily Bulletin aggregate open interest for COMEX Gold futures (TOTAL GC FUT).' It clearly identifies the data as exchange-wide and independent from TradingView chart indicators, so an agent knows what this tool is for. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as reconcile_gold_open_interest, so it stops short of full sibling 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 phrase 'exchange-wide ... total, independent from TradingView chart indicators' gives useful context for when this tool is appropriate, and the note about appending to first-seen history implies later analytical use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of an alternative, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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