get_funding_divergence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the venue-fallback behavior (OKX when Binance restricts the region), that annualisation uses each venue's real funding interval, that only pairs liquid on both legs are included, and that the response carries trade direction. It omits error behavior, rate limits, and an explicit read-only statement.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the core output and then qualifies scope; no filler. It is slightly overstuffed with parenthetical detail, but every clause conveys real behavior.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (annualised divergence plus trade direction) and the pair universe. Missing only return-shape detail such as per-pair fields, which is partly offset by the explicit mention of direction and annualisation.

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% and the single `limit` parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat it. It does not mention `limit` at all, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline.

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 verb ('Returns') and a precise resource: perpetual funding-rate divergence between Hyperliquid and a CEX benchmark. It goes further than the name by specifying the benchmark venues, annualisation method, universe filtering, and that the basis-trade direction is included.

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 the use case (funding-rate basis/arbitrage analysis) through mentions of 'basis trade to open', but never states when to call this versus other data tools or any prerequisites. With no siblings, there is no alternative to route to, so implied usage is the ceiling here.

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