funding_arb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the tool is a naive scan that ignores fees, latency, and execution timing, and that it costs ~$0.003 via x402. This transparency about limitations and cost is strong, though no mention of data freshness or recurrence.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key limitations. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or filler content.

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 complexity (cross-exchange arbitrage across 20 venues) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main purpose, limitations, and payment. It could be enhanced by briefly noting the output format (e.g., a table of ranked pairs with spreads), but overall sufficient.

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% with descriptions for both parameters (min_diff and limit). The description does not add new information beyond the schema; it reuses the concept of 'funding-rate diff' but not specifically min_diff. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already covers meaning.

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 clearly states it identifies cross-exchange funding-rate arbitrage candidates, ranking long/short venue pairs by funding spread across 20+ venues. The verb 'arbitrage' and resource 'funding-rate' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from siblings like funding_screener or funding_spread by focusing on arbitrage candidates.

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 provides context for when to use the tool: 'Naive scan — excludes fees/latency/execution timing' implies it is for preliminary screening, not final execution. It also mentions payment via x402. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the limitations guide appropriate usage.

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