Coinglass: getCoinglassFutureBasis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the 'historical' context, which is useful but not critical. No contradictions, but the description adds limited behavioral insight beyond the annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from a brief mention of pagination behavior or explicit listing of returned fields.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description partially addresses return values by mentioning open/close basis and annualized percentage changes. It lacks details on pagination, sorting, or error scenarios, making it minimally complete for a data retrieval tool.

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 description coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only hints at returned data fields. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 provides historical futures basis data, specifying open and close basis rates and annualized percentage changes. This is a specific verb-resource pair with clear scope, distinguishing it from sibling Coinglass tools like open interest or premium index.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when it is appropriate to use, nor does it provide exclusions or comparisons to other Coinglass tools.

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