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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields (breakevenWithFunding, etc.), but does not mention behavioral traits such as idempotency, no side effects, or prerequisites like wallet connection. It is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 very concise, using three sentences to cover purpose, usage examples, and return values. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 is a simple calculation with no output schema, the description covers the return fields adequately. It could mention the output is for a single period but overall is complete for its complexity.

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 86% (high), so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'funding cost + fees' but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. No additional parameter details are given.

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 computes the price move needed to cover funding costs and fees over a holding period, matching the name and providing concrete user queries. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like workflow.run_funding_cost.

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 specific user questions ('how much does BTC need to move for me to profit after funding?') that trigger this tool, giving clear context. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.

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