perp-cli

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function but doesn't reveal important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, latency characteristics, or what format the results take. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core function, the second clarifies the output focus. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but doesn't address the lack of output format information or behavioral context that annotations would normally provide. The description meets minimum requirements but leaves gaps in operational 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'largest funding rate spreads' which relates to minSpread, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage or interactions.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('scan for', 'finds') and resources ('funding rate arbitrage opportunities', 'symbols with the largest funding rate spreads'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_funding_rates (which likely shows raw rates) and get_funding_analysis (which might analyze single symbols) by focusing on arbitrage opportunities across exchanges.

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 when seeking arbitrage opportunities, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_arb_compare (which might compare specific opportunities) or get_funding_analysis. It provides some context about 'across exchanges' but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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