basis

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

The description discloses data sources (Coinbase spot, Binance+Bybit perp) and mentions funding-implied carry, but lacks details on calculation, data freshness, rate limits, or error handling. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only provides basic transparency.

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 partially repetitive, stating the same phrase twice. The example is a helpful addition. Overall, it could be more concise without losing information, but it is not overly verbose.

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 tool is moderately complex (financial metric), but no output schema is provided. The description explains inputs and purpose but does not describe output format, units, or examples of return values. Missing details for a complete understanding.

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% with a single parameter 'symbol' described as 'Base crypto symbol (e.g. BTC)'. The description adds an example using 'BTC' but does not provide additional semantic context beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 computes spot-vs-perp basis (premium %) and funding-implied annualized carry, with specific data sources. While the purpose is clear, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like funding_oi or market_overview, which could cover similar concepts.

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 implies usage for crypto basis calculation via example, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use basis vs funding_oi). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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