carry_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains cost (FREE), data latency (Delayed 24h), and output structure (top 5 coins on each leg with long/short definitions), which is substantial for a zero-parameter tool. It lacks details about return format or limits, but nothing contradicts the description.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE' and immediately stating the core purpose. Every clause provides useful information: cost, resource, scope, legs, spread, delay, and usage recommendation. No wasted words.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete: it explains what data it returns (top coins, spread), the latency, the cost, and the intended use order. An agent can decide to invoke this tool without any additional context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the concept of funding-carry and defining the long/short terms, which helps an agent understand what the snapshot means even without parameters.

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 what the tool does: provides a cross-sectional funding-carry snapshot for Hyperliquid perps, listing the top 5 coins per leg plus the carry spread. It uses a specific noun phrase and precise scope, distinguishing it as the entry-point snapshot among siblings.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this first,' providing clear context that this is the initial tool to call before diving into more specialized siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the recommendation is unambiguous.

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