carry_rankings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It prominently discloses a cost of ~$0.05 USDC and specifies the use of trailing 14d mean funding annualized. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the cost disclosure and calculation details are valuable traits beyond what schema shows.

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 packs multiple pieces of information: cost, live scope, calculation window, output weights, and a parameter hint. It is front-loaded with the cost warning, making it efficient though slightly dense to parse.

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, the description does enumerate response contents (rank, long/short leg, dollar-neutral weights, spread outliers). However, it omits any explanation of min_volume, a parameter with a default of 0. Without this, the agent may not know how to set the filter, leaving a clear gap for a two-parameter 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?

The schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for k ('coins per leg' with range 1-20), but min_volume is completely unmentioned. Since half the parameters are undocumented, the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 a full live cross-sectional funding-carry ranking across all liquid Hyperliquid perps, with specific output components like rank, long/short leg weights, and spread variants. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as carry_snapshot or carry_history by emphasizing cross-sectional coverage.

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 usage when a cross-sectional ranking is needed and explains how to adjust k for the number of coins per leg. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like carry_snapshot or carry_history, so the agent must infer when alternatives are more appropriate.

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