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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key traits: the call is FREE (cost/paywall behavior an agent can't infer), it operates on exactly one ticker, and it returns a fixed three-field payload. It stops short of error behavior (invalid ticker) or latency/rate-limit expectations, which keeps it below a 5.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact ('FREE.'), then scope, then the routing pointer. No sentence is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields, so an agent knows what comes back. For a single-param read tool that is close to complete; only failure modes on a bad ticker are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% for the single ticker parameter, so baseline is 4. The description still adds real meaning by scoping the ticker to a trade.xyz stock perp symbol (e.g. NVDA) rather than a crypto or xStock ticker, disambiguating the accepted input space.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — perp-vs-stock gap for ONE trade.xyz stock perp — and enumerates the returned fields (perp mark, reference stock price, gap %). It explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_gaps, which covers xStock gap, basis, funding and open interest.

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?

Names the alternative (get_gaps) and the conditions that select it: xStock gap, basis, funding, open interest. The 'basic / ONE ticker' framing tells the agent when this narrower tool is the right pick rather than the richer one.

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