execute_hedge_arbitrage_strategy

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

The description states it 'opens opposing positions' but provides no detail on order types, margin requirements, risk of liquidation, or any side effects. Without annotations, the agent lacks critical behavioral context for a trading action that modifies portfolio state.

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 (two sentences plus structured Args/Returns). It avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to parse. However, the brevity sacrifices completeness in other dimensions.

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 complex arbitrage strategy, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on execution flow, error states, margin requirements, and result format (vague 'summary'). No output schema exists to compensate. The tool's complexity demands more context.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides only a brief example for 'symbol' (e.g., BTCUSDT) and no format, constraints, or allowed values for 'quantity'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 executes a hedge arbitrage strategy based on funding rate by opening opposing spot and perpetual positions. It uses a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('hedge arbitrage strategy'), differentiating it from sibling tools like 'find_arbitrage_pairs' which only identifies opportunities.

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 (e.g., 'find_arbitrage_pairs' or manual order placement). No prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions are provided. The description implies usage for funding rate arbitrage but does not state conditions or constraints.

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