chainvectorBasis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains the output metric (basis in bps, annualized carry) and its interpretive meaning, but does not mention data limitations, update frequency, or response structure—leaving some ambiguity about what the consumer will receive.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides interpretation, and the third notes a practical use case. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no filler.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains the metric, venue-level scope, and interpretation. It could be more complete by noting the exact output shape or data source, but for this level of complexity it is sufficiently complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a single 'base' parameter defaulting to BTC and described as 'Asset symbol, default BTC'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies since the schema already fully documents the 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 clearly identifies the tool as computing spot-perp basis per venue in bps with annualized carry, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling chainvector tools like funding or momentum. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'calculate', making it slightly less direct than ideal.

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 provides clear interpretive guidance: persistent premium indicates leveraged longs crowding, discount indicates shorts, and it is the input for cash-and-carry trades. This gives strong context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools.

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