carry_method

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds context by mentioning 'caveats that matter before anyone trades' and notes the tool is 'FREE'. However, it does not explicitly disclose whether the tool has side effects, the nature of its return value, or any limitations beyond referencing caveats. It is not misleading, but it lacks rich behavioral detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE' and the core purpose. Each clause adds value: what it explains, key topics, and a caveat about use. No filler or tangential information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool is about, why it matters, and when to use it. It mentions specific aspects (universe filter, lookback, leg construction) and flags caveats. It does not explicitly state what the return format will be, but for a 'method' tool, the content is adequately outlined.

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 schema is empty with 100% coverage (nothing to describe). According to the rubric, 0 params defaults to baseline 4. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning because there are none, so no deduction applies.

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 explicitly states 'How the carry ranking is computed', specifying the content (universe filter, lookback, leg construction). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like carry_rankings (which likely provide rankings) and carry_snapshot (which provides data snapshots). It answers not just what but also the scope of the tool.

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 a clear usage directive: 'Read this before presenting the numbers as actionable.' This tells the agent when to use the tool relative to other carry tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing requirement is explicit and actionable.

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