perp_funding_arbitrage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: real-time freshness and the $0.008 USDC cost/payment model, plus the specific exchanges (open-world scope). It stops short of explaining payment mechanics or rate limits, so it adds value but not richly.

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?

A single sentence with the core subject front-loaded and no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly keyword-listed, but every clause carries information (exchanges, data classes, price) rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the result covers (arbitrage, APR, open interest, positioning). However, it leaves return structure and the payment/$0.008 USDC workflow unexplained, which matters for a paid tool in a large sibling set. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – both 'limit' (range and default) and 'symbol' (ticker examples and omission behavior) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 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 names a specific resource (perpetual funding-rate arbitrage) and scope (cross-exchange across Hyperliquid and dYdX v4), plus the data classes returned (APR, open interest, crowded positioning). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like defi_yields or kalshi_polymarket_arb. It reads as a keyword-stuffed noun phrase rather than a clean verb+resource, which keeps it just under a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling tools (defi_yields, prediction_markets, kalshi_polymarket_arb). The 'radar' framing implies an arbitrage-scanning use case but leaves routing entirely to inference.

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