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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden; it does disclose the payment requirement ($0.50/call via x402) and the scan scope, which is real value beyond structured fields. It stops short of stating that this is a read-only/non-destructive operation or anything about latency or auth beyond payment.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the scan type, scope, and ranking before closing with cost. Every clause earns its place, though the ranking parenthetical is packed tightly enough to read slightly tersely.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema scan tool, the description covers purpose, scope, ranking, and cost but says nothing about the shape of the return (a ranked list of perps with funding rates?). The missing return-format cue leaves a modest 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately spends no words on parameter syntax.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('carry scan') with precise scope ('full-universe Hyperliquid', 'every positive-funding perp') and a ranked criterion ('spot-hedgeability'). It hints at contrast with the free-tier sibling via 'full-universe' but never names carry_free_sample, carry_digest, or carry_verdicts explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The $0.50/call price and 'full-universe' scope imply an agent should reach for carry_free_sample as a preview, but that inference is left entirely to the reader.

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