LogicRoomX Crypto MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the underlying strategy but does not disclose important behavioral details such as what data the calculator uses (e.g., current funding rates), assumptions like fees or slippage, or what the output represents. This is a notable gap for a tool that computes financial yields.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and mechanism. The first sentence front-loads the essential identity, and the second sentence explains the arbitrage strategy in a compact, useful way. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, but the description fails to mention what the calculator actually returns (e.g., yield percentage, APY, profit in USDT). Given the conceptual complexity of Cash & Carry arbitrage, the description provides a reasonable overview but leaves out return-value details, making it only partially complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about the symbol or capital_usdt parameters, and does not connect the stated strategy to the parameters. It does not go beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as a 'Cash & Carry arbitrage yield calculator,' clearly stating its function as computing arbitrage yields. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_funding_rate or get_spread by focusing on the combined strategy rather than individual metrics, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies the tool should be used when the user wants to calculate Cash & Carry arbitrage yield, given the clear strategy explanation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like get_spread or get_funding_rate, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does specify 'live' indicating real-time data, but it does not mention any side effects, error behavior, or output format. It is minimally transparent but lacks depth for a tool without annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical usage hint. Every word adds value, and it is easy to scan, fitting the expected format well.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does (status of Binance and OKX) and when to use it. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format or possible statuses, but it is complete enough for a simple no-parameter status tool.

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 no parameters, and the schema is trivially covered (100% with zero properties). Per rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds context by naming the exchanges covered, making the tool understandable without any parameter documentation.

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 provides 'live operational status' for two specific exchanges, Binance and OKX. This is a specific verb (get status) and resource, and it inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like get_funding_rate or get_spread, which are market-data focused rather than status checks.

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 includes an explicit trigger: 'Use when user reports failed orders or unexpected errors.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would push it to a 5.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the output components (8h rate, annualized yield, next settlement time) and data sources (Binance and OKX), which is useful for an agent to understand what to expect. It does not mention side effects, but none are implied for a read-only data retrieval.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the key information (current funding rates) and then specifying the return fields. Every word contributes value with no 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main return values and data sources. It could explain the exact format of the 8h rate, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema coverage is 100%, with the 'symbol' parameter clearly described as a crypto symbol with examples. The description adds no further parameter details, but since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline of 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 it returns current perpetual funding rates from Binance and OKX, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('perpetual funding rates'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_cash_carry and get_spread, which serve other purposes.

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 implies usage when funding rate data is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Context is mildly clear but no direct guidance is given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds behavioral context by specifying 'Real-time' and detailing the metrics computed (gross%, net%, best route, profitability verdict). This goes beyond the schema but doesn't disclose side effects or limitations, which are not apparent for a read-only calculation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists outputs, with no unnecessary words 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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, output values, and real-time nature. It could optionally mention fee math or error conditions, but these are not essential for basic usage.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (symbol and taker_fee), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 explicitly states 'Real-time price spread between Binance and OKX' and enumerates return fields (gross%, net%, best route, profitability verdict), making the tool's function clear and distinct from sibling tools like get_funding_rate and get_exchange_status.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to check inter-exchange spread) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it lacks explicit guidance beyond its own purpose.

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