Cross-exchange funding arbitrage opportunities

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by explaining the universal venue coverage, the 12 major perps, and the calculation assumptions (net of taker fees and weekly rebalance cost). It also specifies what the tool returns, which is valuable behavioral context for a side-effect-free data tool.

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 compact, front-loads the user trigger, and packs relevant scope/output details into two sentences. There is no filler and every clause adds useful information.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states when to call, what data is scanned, what the output decision is, and the cost assumptions. An agent can invoke this tool and interpret its result without further clarification.

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, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Schema coverage is trivially complete, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 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 states a clear user-trigger and a specific analytical deliverable: identifying best long/short venue per symbol with gross and net APR. It names the domain (funding arbitrage, funding rate differences, delta-neutral carry trades) and describes scope, so it is easy to distinguish from siblings like get_funding_heatmap or get_fee_table.

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 explicitly says when to call the tool, listing three user-intent patterns. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the trigger conditions are clear enough for an agent to select it.

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