Live Official Open Interest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the data source is Hyperliquid's Info API, snapshots are hourly, and the payload includes open interest, mark price, and 24h notional volume. There is no contradiction with 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 composed of four short sentences, each earning its place: identity/source, output contents, use cases, and time-range defaults. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 tool with 4 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: output fields, frequency, data source, default range, and maximum range. A minor omission is explaining what 'toon format' means, but that is addressed in the schema's parameter 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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description's wording around 'per-dex' and 'official' reinforces the meaning of the dex and coin parameters but does not meaningfully add constraints or format details 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 opens with 'Official per-dex open interest for a coin, sourced from Hyperliquid's Info API (not derived from live_positions)', which names the resource, scope, and source while explicitly distinguishing it from computed OI. It also states what the tool returns: hourly snapshots with open interest, mark price, and 24h notional volume.

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 has an explicit 'Use when...' clause listing venue-reported ground truth, per-dex breakdown, and cross-checking computed OI against official numbers. It does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative or provide an explicit when-not, but the selection context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool.

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