Pair / delta-neutral suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, establishing a safe, dynamic read operation. The description adds behavioral context by detailing mode-specific behavior (e.g., 'signal' requires two tokens) and the type of intelligence provided (pair ideas, funding arb, backtest). No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the overall purpose, then succinctly listing modes and their context. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though a slight restructuring could improve readability (e.g., bullet points).

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?

With 9 parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the main modes and their required params, hinting at use cases. It does not repeat return value details (handled by output schema) and provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter's intent is already clear from the schema (e.g., 'Required for mode="signal"'). The description adds value by grouping parameters under modes (e.g., mention token_a and token_b for signal) but does not significantly enhance what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides 'pair-trading and delta-neutral funding-arbitrage intelligence' and enumerates four modes (suggestions, delta-neutral, history, signal) with brief explanations. This verb+resource+scope is distinct from sibling tools like get_global_market or get_coin_risk, which focus on different data.

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 implicitly guides usage by explaining each mode's purpose (e.g., 'signal' needs token_a & token_b), but it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or provide when-to-use/ when-not-to-use guidance. Siblings exist, but no direct differentiation is given.

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