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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: funding is quoted on an 8h basis against a CEX median, liquidations are scoped to 24h, and share is computed across 'every tracked venue'. It does not mention data freshness or refresh cadence, which would complete the picture.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource name, then the contents, then the routing question. No filler or restated name/title, and every clause carries a distinct metric.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and safety fully covered by annotations, the description's job is to say what the board contains — which it does for all three component metrics plus their time bases. Nothing an agent needs in order to choose and call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals a fixed-shape board rather than implying hidden filters.

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 gives a specific composite resource: 'Arbitrum perps board' with GMX v2 open interest per coin, venue-share, GMX funding vs CEX median (8h basis), and 24h on-chain liquidations. That scope distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_open_interest or get_liquidations, though it never names a sibling to route away from explicitly.

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?

'Ask this for "how is Arbitrum positioned vs CEXs"' is an explicit invocation trigger that tells the agent which user question maps here. There are no exclusions, however — nothing says when to prefer get_oi_board, get_funding_rates, or get_liquidations_summary over this aggregate board.

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