Cross-exchange funding arbitrage opportunities

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description goes further by detailing what the tool computes and returns—best long/short venue per symbol, gross and net annualized APR, with explicit costs (taker fees and weekly rebalance). This adds meaningful behavioral context 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence gives the usage trigger; the second covers exchange coverage, symbol count, and output details. Front-loaded and highly scannable for an agent.

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?

The description fully explains what the tool does, which exchanges and symbols are covered, and what the output contains. Given zero parameters and no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 there is no parameter-specific burden on the description. The description compensates by explaining the output semantics (best venue, net APR) even though no input schema details are needed. This aligns with the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 opens with explicit trigger phrasing ('Call this when the user asks about funding arbitrage...') and then specifies the exact function: comparing funding across six exchanges and 12 perps. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_funding_heatmap by focusing on arbitrage opportunity discovery rather than general heatmap visualization.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use conditions: funding arbitrage, funding rate differences, or delta-neutral carry trades. It does not name alternative tools for other cases, but the trigger context is explicit and sufficiently bounded for an agent to route accurately.

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