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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns live funding rate (hourly + annualized), premium, open interest, and cross-venue data. It also mentions it's a paid tool with a price and endpoint. No contradictions. Could mention error handling or rate limits, but overall sufficient.

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 concise (about 4-5 lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes all essential information: what it does, input, output, cost, and endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (funding rates, premium, OI, cross-venue data) and its purpose. It does not specify return format or error handling, but these are minor gaps. Overall complete for the complexity.

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% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds an example (NVDA, TSLA) and context of usage, but does not significantly add meaning 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 provides funding rates for tokenized-stock perps on Robinhood Chain, including cross-venue comparison. It specifies the resource (Lighter perpetual funding rate) and verbs (provide, send). It distinguishes from sibling tools like perps_funding and rh_funding_arb by focusing on Robinhood Chain and cross-venue comparison.

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 tells to send a ticker and mentions it's a carry signal for agents trading tokenized-equity perps, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like perps_funding or rh_funding_arb. The implied use case is clear but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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