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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses that funding PnL is not modeled, flags the strategy as approximate, and explains the open/close behavior and routing through the venue adapter. This is substantive additional context about how the tool behaves.

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 multi-paragraph but well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded and subsequent details organized around execution logic, constraints, and flags. Every sentence adds relevant information without fluff, though it is more verbose than strictly necessary.

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 complexity (11 parameters, strategy creation, conditional execution), the description covers the essential behavior, constraints, and important parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Missing explanations for a few parameters (slippage_bps, funding_lookback, interval_seconds) are minor given the overall completeness.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It explains key parameters: min_funding, usd_per_trade, leverage, acknowledge_tier_b, and references risk to another strategy. While not all 11 parameters are individually described, the most consequential ones are covered, and the rest (e.g., wallet_address, venue) are self-explanatory in context.

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 creates a basis-trade strategy, specifically the perp SHORT leg with 'APPROXIMATE' flag. It distinguishes itself from sibling strategy tools by detailing the funding-harvest mechanism and the specific leg it manages.

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 explicit conditions for use: only assets with a mapped perp market (currently SOL), and requires acknowledge_tier_b=true for Tier B venues. It also explains the trading logic (open/close conditions), giving clear context for when to invoke this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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