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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: minute-level granularity, 'buyPrice vs sellPrice,' data from 'our archive,' and hours default/max. However, it does not mention the return shape, data ordering, or potential limitations/errors, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: a single clear sentence describing the tool's purpose followed by a compact parameter list. There is no filler, and the example symbol adds value without bloat.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: data source, granularity, pair of exchanges, and parameter constraints. It stops short of fully specifying the output format or edge-case behavior, but is largely complete for a simple read-only history endpoint.

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 compensate, and it does. It explains all four parameters: exchangeA and exchangeB as the two exchanges, symbol with a concrete example ('HOME_USDT'), and hours with default (6) and max (48). This provides meaning far beyond the bare schema property names.

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 identifies the action ('get') and the resource ('minute-level price basis history between two exchanges for the same perp symbol'), and adds specificity with 'buyPrice vs sellPrice from our archive.' It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_basis_regime or get_basis_signal, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description implies this tool is for fetching raw basis history between two exchanges, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it over similar siblings (e.g., get_basis_regime, get_basis_signal) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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