Cross-exchange funding arbitrage opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it compares funding across 6 specified exchanges for 12 major perps and returns both gross and net APR (net of taker fees and weekly rebalance cost). This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradiction.

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 two sentences: the first gives the usage trigger, the second explains the computation and output. It is front-loaded, specific, and contains no redundant information relative to the schema/annotations.

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 no-parameter tool without an output schema, the description provides a solid summary of the output: best long/short venue per symbol with gross and net annualized APR. It could specify whether this is current data or a snapshot, but the core expectations are clearly set.

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 zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters and instead focuses on what the tool computes and returns, which is appropriate.

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's function: it compares funding rates across multiple exchanges and returns best long/short venues with APR. It explicitly mentions funding arbitrage, funding rate differences, and delta-neutral carry trades, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_funding_heatmap.

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 begins with 'Call this when the user asks about funding arbitrage, funding rate differences between exchanges, or delta-neutral carry trades,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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