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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It reveals the tool is paid ('x402 paid tool — price $0.005') and gives the endpoint. No destructive behavior is indicated. It could mention rate limits or auth needs, but the pricing and endpoint disclosure add significant transparency.

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 concise sentences: first defines purpose and outputs, second gives usage instruction, third labels the tool. No redundancy, properly front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

With one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core purpose, input, output components, and pricing. It does not detail output format or potential errors, but the tool is simple enough that this is nearly complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% (one param 'coin' with description 'Perp symbol, e.g. BTC'). The description repeats 'Send { coin }' and 'e.g. BTC', adding minimal semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool computes cross-venue funding-rate arbitrage for a given coin, specifying the exact outputs: annualized funding on Hyperliquid vs Binance vs Bybit, spread, and delta-neutral leg. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'perps_funding' (likely just funding rates) and 'rh_funding_arb' (Robinhood specific).

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 instructs to 'Send { coin }' and labels it as a 'Delta-neutral yield signal for funding-arb agents', but it does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare with alternative tools. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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