OI Hedge Planner

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining that it compares live funding rates, provides recommendations, and computes net carry APR. It also discloses a practical limitation (illiquid exotic/pre-market symbols) that goes beyond the structured 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 three sentences, each adding essential value: the main purpose, the analysis and recommendations, and a practical caution. It is front-loaded and free of filler, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers the core functionality, output type (net carry APR), and a key risk (illiquidity). An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed, but the description could have mentioned any prerequisites or data freshness limitations, making it slightly incomplete.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not directly explain the 'top' or 'min_carry_apr' parameters. While 'min_carry_apr' is indirectly related to the carry APR concept, the description fails to clarify their meaning or how they affect results, forcing reliance on parameter names alone.

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's function with a specific verb ('Plan') and resource ('OI farming on Pacifica with a cross-exchange hedge'). It details what it compares (funding rates across 10+ exchanges) and what it recommends (which side to hold, which exchange to hedge on, and net carry APR), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like scan_funding or open_funding_position.

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 conveys that this is a planning tool (not execution) and gives a caution about illiquid exotic symbols, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as comparing against scan_funding for raw funding rates or open_funding_position for execution.

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