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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the paid nature, normalization, venue coverage, the rejected directional-alpha hypothesis, and the need to consult a catalog for current availability and price. It does not describe the return format, rate limits, or explicit payment-authentication flow, but the essential behavioral traits are stated.

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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct purpose: resource definition, usage guidance, exclusion warning, and pointer to further details. No redundant phrasing, and the core 'what' is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool provides, when to use it, when not to use it, and where to get availability/price. The main gap is the absence of any indication of the return shape or data format, but that is partially mitigated by the clear purpose and the rcq://catalog pointer.

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% for the single parameter payment_signature, which the schema already explains as an x402 payment authorization for header-aware clients. The description adds no further parameter-specific guidance — it only mentions 'Paid' and points to the catalog for price, leaving the schema to do the heavy lifting.

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 identifies a specific resource — a 'BTC perpetual-funding surface' across Bitnomial, OKX, Hyperliquid and dYdX — and is further clarified by the usage list ('crowding, cross-venue dislocation, leverage-regime monitoring'). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetches' or 'provides', and it does not directly contrast itself with the sibling tool btc_funding_regime, leaving a small ambiguity.

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 gives an explicit positive-use list ('Use for crowding, cross-venue dislocation, leverage-regime monitoring and arbitrage screening') and a clear when-not-to-use statement ('do not use this tool as a validated directional signal'). It also points the agent to rcq://catalog for availability and price, providing context for deciding whether the tool is actionable.

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