spot-future-basis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important conditional behavior that supplying expiry adds annualisation, but it omits whether the tool is read-only, what data must exist, what the return shape is beyond that column, and how errors or missing contracts are handled.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves the definition under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, this is too thin. It explains the annualisation trigger but not the required symbols, time range, asset-class selection, or expected output.

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 low at 17%. The description only reflects the expiry/annualisation behavior, which is already explained in the schema, and does not clarify future_symbol, spot_symbol, start_ns, end_ns, or asset_class semantics.

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 sentence identifies the calculation as a spot-vs-future basis and notes that results are annualised when a contract expiry is supplied. That is specific enough to understand the resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from nearby tools such as basis, perp-basis, or term-structure.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling basis tools, no exclusions, and no prerequisites such as required symbol availability or date-range constraints. The implied use case is spot-future basis, but an agent receives no routing help.

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