carry_universe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a notable trait: the tool is paid (~$0.01 USDC) and the data is sorted by daily notional volume. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what the response format looks like, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the most critical information (cost) and then concisely states the resource and its attributes. No wasted words or redundant details.

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?

The description provides a reasonable picture of what the tool returns: the liquid perp universe sorted by daily notional volume, including open interest, mark price, and funding. With no output schema, it defines the core data content. However, it does not mention pagination, result limits, or the exact response structure, which would be helpful but not essential for a simple list 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered and the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by naming the data fields (open interest, mark price, current funding) that the tool returns, which compensates for the lack of any parameter detail. No further parameter semantics are needed.

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 identifies a specific resource (the liquid Hyperliquid perp universe) and specifies its contents (sorting, fields). It indirectly differentiates from sibling tools like carry_snapshot or carry_history by focusing on the full universe. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'fetch' or 'list', which would make the purpose more direct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or comparison with sibling tools like carry_snapshot or carry_rankings. The only context is what the data is, not the use case.

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