defi_get_perpetuals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool gets data, without disclosing whether it is read-only, the data granularity (e.g., historical vs current), denominations, or coverage. This is minimal and does not enrich beyond the name.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify whether the data is aggregated across all perpetual DEXs or a specific one, nor does it mention data freshness or return format, which could help disambiguate from related tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics. Per the scoring guidance, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description clearly conveys the output domain, which is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('perpetual DEX volume and open interest data'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like defi_get_options_volume or defi_get_dex_volume by focusing on perpetual DEX metrics.

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 this is for fetching perpetual DEX volume and open interest, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of alternatives like defi_get_perpetual_protocol, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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