chainvectorStrategyCarry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reveal that spread_apr is gross carry before fees/slippage and that the Binance leg can be executed here. Yet it remains ambiguous whether this tool actually places orders or simply produces a signal, and it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or ordering 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core purpose, the second clarifies a metric caveat, and the third explains execution boundaries. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It mentions 'spread_apr' and 'best long/short venue pair' but does not describe the full output shape, how results are ordered, or what fields beyond spread_apr appear. The execution split is helpful, but the missing return details leave an agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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 already documents all three parameters (base, min_oi_usd, min_spread_apr) with clear descriptions, so coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail; the mention of 'spread_apr' refers to an output metric, not an input, so it does not enhance schema understanding.

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 a delta-neutral funding-carry scan that picks the best long/short venue pair per asset by annualized funding spread. It is specific and uses a strong verb ('scan'), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling chainvectorFundingArbitrage.

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 usage by noting that spread_apr is gross carry before fees/slippage and that only the Binance leg can be executed here, while the perp leg needs a futures venue. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use/when-to-avoid guidance or alternatives, leaving the choice among the many chainvector strategy tools ambiguous.

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