basis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real provenance value: spot from Coinbase, perp marks from Binance + Bybit. It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or freshness/latency characteristics for a market-data metric.

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 core metric sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the description is literally duplicated before the em dash, which is pure waste. The example line earns its place by showing the call shape.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe the return shape; it names the quantities (basis/premium %, annualized carry) and data sources, which covers the essentials. It omits units, formatting, and edge cases such as missing perp marks.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains `symbol` fully. The example (`?symbol=BTC`) reinforces usage but adds no semantics the schema doesn't already carry; 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?

States a specific computed metric: spot-vs-perp basis (premium %) with funding-implied annualized carry. An agent can distinguish this from plain price or funding_oi lookups. However it offers no explicit sibling differentiation for closely related tools like funding_oi or orderbook.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. The only usage signal is the query example, which shows syntax rather than the condition under which this tool beats its siblings.

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