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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the selection logic and that it reads from a live table, but it does not mention sorting, default behavior when no exchanges are supplied, or what the returned asset entries contain. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then give parameter guidance. Some parameter text duplicates the schema, but the examples and pair-filtering clarification justify the length.

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 simple query tool this covers the main purpose and filter semantics, but with no output schema it leaves the return fields vague. It also does not state default scope when no exchange pair is provided or how results are ordered, so an agent would need to infer these details.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that exchangeA and exchangeB filter pairs between the two exchanges, providing concrete examples ('binance', 'bingx', 0.05), and explaining that minRateDiff uses absolute rate difference in percent.

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 returns cross-exchange funding-rate arbitrage opportunities and explains the long/short funding logic. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_perp_arbitrage or get_spot_arbitrage, so it misses the top score for 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?

The description implies usage: call this when looking for funding-rate arbitrage between two exchanges. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_funding_rates or get_perp_arbitrage, and no exclusion criteria.

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