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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains median-over-window behavior, annualization per settlement cycle, and why the latest print is avoided. It doesn't cover rate limits or data availability, but the core computational behavior is transparent.

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?

Two tight paragraphs with the core concept front-loaded and every clause adding methodological detail. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or schema fields.

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 tool with no output schema, the prose describes the per-coin outputs (spread, long venue, short venue), annualization, and ranking window. It falls slightly short by not stating how `limit` or `min_venues` affect the returned list, but the essential behavior is covered.

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 description adds meaningful semantics to `window` by tying it to the median calculation and noise rationale. However, `limit` and `min_venues` are left completely unexplained despite 0% schema description coverage, so two of three parameters rely only on their names and defaults.

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 first sentence names the exact resource and metric: coins ranked by how far funding disagrees across exchanges. The level of specificity — spread in APR points, venue to hold long/short — clearly differentiates it from sibling funding tools even without naming them.

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?

No explicit 'use this when' or 'use X instead' guidance appears. The intended use is implied by the definition, but there are no exclusions or comparisons to similar funding-related tools like get_funding_rates or get_funding_history.

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