Exchange Open Interest

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

The description discloses two behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide: the gross both-sides OI convention with an explicit halving note for one-sided comparisons, and the 120s cache ceiling that tells the agent data may be stale. Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real interpretive context without contradicting them.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: definition/scope, convention caveat, use cases, and freshness. The most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded and there is 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 read-only snapshot tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers selection (what + use cases), interpretation (gross convention), and freshness (cache). Nothing an agent needs to choose or call this tool correctly is missing.

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% — the useToonFormat parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default and behavior (compact toon vs standard JSON). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource ('open interest for the whole exchange by dex') with clear scope and the long/short notional split, matching the title while adding concrete detail. The example queries ('what's the OI on Hyperliquid / on xyz?') make the intent unambiguous and help distinguish it from volume, positions, and historical OI siblings.

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?

'Use for' explicitly lists three concrete scenarios — OI queries by exchange, market-size questions, and long-vs-short balance checks — giving an agent clear selection criteria. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., versus market_historical_oi, live_oi_history, or live_official_oi), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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