botindex_hl_funding_arb

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a cost ('$0.05'), which hints at potential rate limits or pricing, but lacks details on execution (e.g., real-time vs. historical data, latency, error handling). This is insufficient for a tool that likely involves financial data analysis.

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 brief and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in one sentence. However, the inclusion of '$0.05' feels slightly out of place without context, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 complexity of arbitrage detection and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output entails (e.g., opportunity details, timestamps, confidence scores), leaving the agent unsure of what to expect upon invocation.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of inputs, warranting a baseline score of 4.

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 the tool identifies 'funding rate arbitrage opportunities between Hyperliquid and major CEXs,' which provides a specific purpose (arbitrage detection) and resource (funding rates across platforms). However, it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'botindex_arb_scanner' or 'botindex_hl_correlation_matrix,' leaving ambiguity about scope overlap.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions a cost ('$0.05'), which implies a usage consideration, but doesn't specify prerequisites, frequency, or comparison to other arbitrage-related tools in the sibling list.

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