Scan cross-exchange perpetual price spreads

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context: it is a screening tool that subtracts configurable fees and reports top-of-book capacity, reinforcing its nondestructive, stable nature.

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?

Three sentences, no redundant information. The purpose is stated in the first sentence; additional clarification follows efficiently.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and output schema, the description covers core functionality and usage boundaries. It doesn't explain every parameter in depth, but the schema and annotations fill many gaps. Overall adequate for the complexity.

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 22%, so description must compensate. Description mentions 'selected symbols', 'taker-fee estimates', 'top-of-book capacity', and 'cross-venue' which maps to some parameters (symbols, fees, limit, venues). However, details like cost_basis, minimum_net_bps, and minimum_top_of_book_notional_usd are not elaborated, leaving gaps.

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?

Description uses specific verbs ('Compare', 'ranks') and resources ('best bid and ask quotes for perpetual symbols on Binance USD-M, OKX and Hyperliquid'). It clearly states the tool's output (ranked cross-venue spreads with fees) and explicitly distinguishes itself from latency-arbitrage or execution tools.

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?

Description defines the tool as a 'persistent-divergence screen' and explicitly states what it is not ('not a latency-arbitrage or order-execution tool'). This gives clear guidance on when to use it. It doesn't mention alternatives but sibling tools (e.g., scan_cross_exchange_funding_spreads) provide context.

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