funding_signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool computes facts (not profit forecast), is decision-ready, and includes pricing. However, it omits details on authorization, rate limits, or data freshness, though it covers the core behavioral traits well.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the key concept and efficienty lists outputs and pricing. Each element is valuable, but the high density could be slightly improved with structured formatting. Score 4 for being concise yet informative.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately explains the output structure (net fees, break-even, max notional, liquidity flag) and distinguishes from siblings. It lacks explicit details on authentication or limits, but overall covers essential aspects for a signal tool.

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% so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters (min_diff, limit) beyond their schema definitions. It focuses on outputs, not parameter guidance.

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 'DECISION-READY funding-arb SIGNAL' and explicitly distinguishes it as the 'sell-the-outcome upgrade over funding_arb'. It lists specific outputs (e.g., net of fees, break-even periods, max notional, liquidity flag) making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating from siblings.

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 use for funding arbitrage signal decisions and calls it an 'upgrade over funding_arb', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others like funding_history or funding_screener, nor provide exclusions or context for alternatives.

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