chainvectorFundingArbitrage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a valuable caveat: 'spread_apr is gross carry before fees/slippage,' which clarifies an important limitation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as data freshness, return format, or behavior when no pairs meet the OI threshold, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and immediately clarifies the meaning of 'spread_apr' with a caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 scan tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it scans, what it returns (best pair per asset), and the key metric with its caveat. It could be more explicit about output fields or sorting, but it is adequately complete for a 2-parameter tool with high schema coverage.

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 100%, with both 'base' and 'min_oi_usd' having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 performs a 'funding arbitrage scan' and specifies the output: 'best long/short venue pair per asset by annualized funding spread.' This uses a specific verb (scan) and resource (funding arbitrage), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'chainvectorFundingCurrent' or 'chainvectorFundingWeighted' by focusing on the arbitrage pair selection.

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 when to use this tool (when seeking best long/short venue pairs by funding spread) but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage, but it lacks explicit comparisons to other ChainVector funding tools.

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