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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the calculation method (min of both legs depth within slippage), provides a default for slippagePct, and implies a read-only analysis tool. However, it does not explicitly state it performs no state changes or whether it requires network access or permissions.

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 concise sentence followed by a parameter list. The key output is front-loaded ('Orderbook liquidity'), and the parameter list is compact. No filler or redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter explication.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description omits the exact structure of the returned data, error conditions, exchange identifier formats, or how the recommendation is computed. An agent may struggle to interpret the output or handle edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It lists exchangeA, exchangeB, symbol, and slippagePct with a default, and the phrase 'within slippage' clarifies slippagePct. However, it does not define what symbol should be (e.g., a trading pair string) or specify exchange naming conventions, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific resource ('hedged pair') and the concrete outputs ('max neutral size', 'best prices', 'recommendation'). It distinguishes this from siblings like get_orderbook by focusing on cross-exchange pair analysis rather than a single orderbook.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_orderbook or open_hedged_position. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and context.

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