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 key behavioral aspects—predicted rates, annualization, spread—but it does not mention the output shape, pagination, defaults, or read-only status. The added context (annualization, spread) is useful but incomplete.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core deliverable (predicted funding rates across venues) and then adds the normalization and spread, followed by the trading-signal interpretation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description should explain enough about parameter effects and the response format. It only describes the high-level output (annualized funding rates and spread) without addressing how the four optional parameters shape results or what the response structure looks like. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly for a specific coin or filter.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, all four parameter descriptions are generic 'to process' placeholders that add negligible meaning. The tool description does not explain the distinction between coin and symbol, what limit controls, or how minSpreadPct filters results. With this low-quality coverage, the description must compensate and does not.

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 verb and resource: 'Predicted funding rates for the same coin across venues', names the venues, and notes annualization and spread. This clearly distinguishes it from single-venue tools like x402-hyperliquid-funding and other funding-rate tools in the sibling 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?

The description positions the tool as 'the cross-exchange funding arbitrage signal' and gives an explicit trading rule (long where funding is lowest, short where it is highest). It implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which prevents a 5.

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