compare_perps

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

No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the basic comparison. Since annotations are absent, the description should detail data freshness, scope, or limitations. It only states the comparison dimensions without any side effects or constraints.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could include slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is sparse for a comparison tool. It does not explain what 'volume and activity' encompass or what the output format is. Given no annotations, more context is needed for adequate completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by mentioning volume and activity as comparison criteria, but the parameter description in the schema already provides examples. No further semantic enrichment.

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 compares perpetuals protocols side-by-side by volume and activity. It specifies the resource (perpetuals protocols) and the comparison dimensions (volume and activity), distinguishing it from siblings like compare_yields or get_perps_overview.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_perps_overview or compare_yields. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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