Scan cross-exchange perpetual funding spreads

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not conflict. It adds value by disclosing that the tool does not place orders and that its output is not risk-free arbitrage, and it explains the pairing and normalization logic. No contradictions found.

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 concise, containing two well-structured sentences that convey essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists) and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers the main workflow and outputs (gross carry, costs, break-even time). However, it does not detail output structure or data freshness, but the output schema presumably fills that gap.

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 50% (some parameters have descriptions, some do not). The description clarifies the overall computation (e.g., holding hours relates to break-even time, round_trip_cost_bps is 'user-supplied costs'), but it does not explicitly map to parameters like limit or minimum_annualized_spread_percent. This adds some context but is not fully compensatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('compare') and clearly identifies the resource ('perpetual funding on Binance USD-M, OKX and Hyperliquid'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_cross_exchange_perp_price_spreads' by focusing on funding spreads rather than price spreads.

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 states what the tool does (compare funding spreads for carry estimation) and explicitly notes what it does not do (place orders, describe as risk-free arbitrage). However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternative tools, though the sibling list implies differentiation.

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