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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is read-only, whether it only returns opportunities without executing trades, or what the response shape contains. The 'get_' name hints at retrieval, but the description itself does not confirm behavior.

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 short and front-loads the core concept before listing parameters. Every sentence adds some context, though the second sentence is essentially a bare parameter list rather than meaningful guidance.

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?

This is a simple getter with no output schema, no annotations, and partial schema coverage. The description does not explain what the response contains, how results are ordered, or any defaults beyond those in the schema. The tool is usable but the description leaves important operational details to be inferred.

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 50%; limit and minSpreadPct are documented in the schema, but exchangeA and exchangeB have no descriptions. The description merely lists the parameter names and gives the context of two exchanges, without clarifying expected formats, valid values, or the role of each exchange parameter.

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 defines perp arbitrage as the same perpetual traded on two exchanges with a price spread, which clarifies the resource and intent behind the 'get_' prefix. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling trading and risk tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'list'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_threat_level, get_tickers, or list_hedge_positions. The description implies it is for screening arbitrage spreads but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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