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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It describes the data coverage (open interest, funding, liquidations) but does not mention operational aspects such as data freshness, potential latency, or whether it aggregates live data. For a read-only 'get' tool, the side effects are minimal, but the description does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or disclose any limitations. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 and front-loaded with the core concept 'Arbitrum perps board'. It then enumerates the key metrics in a compact list and ends with a practical usage hint. It avoids redundancy and stays within two sentences, making it efficient while still informative.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description needs to convey what the agent will receive. It does that by listing the included metrics (open interest, funding, liquidations) and the comparison against CEXs. It does not specify the exact response format (e.g., list of coins), but for a board-style tool this is likely evident from the metrics. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. Per the baseline, with 0 params the score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't attempt to. It focuses on the content of the board, which 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 it is an 'Arbitrum perps board' covering GMX v2 open interest per coin, funding, and liquidations. The verb 'get' plus the specific resource (Arbitrum perps board) makes the purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_funding_rates or get_liquidations, but the composite nature and the focus on Arbitrum vs CEXs differentiates it enough for an agent to infer its scope.

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 provides a clear usage scenario: 'Ask this for how is Arbitrum positioned vs CEXs'. This is explicit guidance on when to invoke the tool. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the use case is sufficient for an agent to decide between this and more specialized tools like get_funding_rates or get_liquidations.

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