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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a critical paid-execution detail: costs $0.01 USDC per call via x402 on Solana mainnet. It also communicates cross-venue aggregation and the surrounding data (spread, crowding). It does not cover failure modes or return shape, but for a simple one-parameter pricing tool, the disclosed traits are sufficient and valuable.

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 extremely efficient: two sentences deliver the tool's purpose, venue scope, the alternative to compare against, and the pricing model. Every clause adds information, with the core capability front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: symbol scope, venue set, cost, and the sibling alternative. The phrase 'crowding read' could be more explicit, but it does not block correct invocation. Overall, the description is adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 describes the single parameter as a USDT perp symbol with an example, giving 100% coverage. The description adds the qualifier 'ANY' and reinforces the acceptable format, but this is already captured in the schema. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action: retrieving funding for ANY USDT perp across three named venues (Bybit, OKX, Hyperliquid) in one call, with additional spread and crowding data. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_funding_rate by noting that sibling covers only SOL+BTC, making the tool's unique scope obvious.

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 explicitly names get_funding_rate as the alternative and states its limitation (SOL+BTC only), which implies when this tool is the better choice. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusion cases, such as when only a single venue is needed, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select between the two most relevant siblings.

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