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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds behavioral context: results are ranked, cross-venue, with a composite verdict per pair, and mentions an on-chain verified merkle anchor, which is extra useful context beyond the annotations. It does not describe pagination or output format, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is reasonably transparent.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose (ranked cross-venue funding arbitrage) and adds relevant context (composite verdict, sibling references, on-chain anchor). It is concise and structured, though the trailing marketing phrases ('Crypto quant AI trading signal') add slight noise.

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 is relatively simple (2 optional params, no output schema) and the description covers purpose, scope, and references to related tools. It orients the agent on what to expect (ranked pairs, verdict) and that it is a read-only signal, which is adequate for selection and invocation. It could mention the output format, but lack of output schema reduces the burden.

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% (both limit and minSpreadBps are described in the schema). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning funding rate spreads, but since the schema already fully describes the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool scans cross-venue funding arbitrage across major crypto perpetual futures venues, computes funding rate spreads, and outputs a BUY SELL HOLD composite verdict per pair. It uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('funding arbitrage'), and is distinct from siblings like get_trade_call or get_market_regime.

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 mentions this is an 'AI trading signal' and points to alternatives via 'Trade call via get_trade_call, market regime via get_market_regime', providing directional guidance. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool vs. alternatives, but the cross-references and clear scope imply usage context.

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