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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does the most important thing: it discloses upfront that this is a paid call ($0.01, x402, USDC on Base or Solana), which is critical behavioral context an agent must know before invoking. It also states the max of 60 tickers and the default of 20 large names, though it omits rate limits, failure modes, and payment failure handling.

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?

One dense passage with zero waste, and it front-loads the price signal before any feature detail — the right ordering for a paid tool. Every clause contributes a capability or constraint.

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 two-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, defaults, caps, and the shape of returned fields. It does not describe response structure (e.g. table schema, units, null handling when an xStock is missing), which is the main residual gap.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the venues enum. The description largely restates them ('tickers=all for every auto-discovered US stock perp', 'Set venues=all for a cross-venue comparison'), adding only the note that per-venue funding is hourly and annualized. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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?

States a specific resource (a gap table for trade.xyz stock perps) and enumerates exactly what it returns: perp mark/oracle vs reference stock price and xStock, basis, hourly/annualized funding, open interest. It is distinguishable in content from siblings like get_funding or get_gap_sample, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Implied usage is clear (you want the gap/funding table for a ticker set), and it explains what venues='all' unlocks. However it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance against get_gap_sample, get_funding, or get_history, so the agent must infer which sibling answers a given question.

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