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.