oracle_perp_funding_and_basis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema — that the call costs 0.02 USDC on Base, implying x402 payment — which is valuable and non-obvious. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, latency/freshness, rate limits, which exchanges are covered, or response shape, leaving significant 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?

Two well-formed sentences with no padding: the capability is front-loaded and the cost disclosure is compactly appended. Every clause earns its place.

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 data-oracle tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return format or at least what a 'signal' contains. It conveys the domain and price but leaves the agent guessing about response structure and payment mechanics required to actually invoke it successfully.

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% and the single 'assets' parameter is fully documented in the schema, which itself gives the ['BTC','ETH','SOL'] example. The description's mention of BTC/ETH/SOL only mirrors that example, adding no syntax, defaulting, or scope detail (e.g., unsupported assets, case sensitivity) beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource domain — cross-exchange perp funding rate skew, basis spread, and spot-futures arbitrage signals — for concrete assets (BTC/ETH/SOL). No sibling in the list covers perpetual funding/basis, so an agent can route here without schema inspection, though the phrasing lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'fetch') and reads more like a product label than an action statement.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent must infer from the arbitrage/signal framing that this is for funding-rate or basis analyses, and nothing tells it how this differs from siblings like polymarket_crypto_odds or defi_yield_radar.

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