market_pulse_basis

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful runtime behavior: assets missing from either venue yield an error on that row, and basis and funding are always reported together rather than folded into one score.

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?

Front-loaded with the core comparison, followed by a short interpretive guide and a compact parameter block. Every sentence contributes; none repeats schema or annotation data.

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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers semantics, constraints, error behavior, and interpretation. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 only parameter, symbols, has no schema description, but the Args block fully compensates by defining base tickers, giving an example, and stating both-venue listing and per-row error behavior.

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 action and resources: compare Coinbase spot against Hyperliquid perp basis, plus funding and positioning. It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from price/candles/orderbook tools, but it never names or contrasts the nearest sibling market_pulse_funding_rate, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 conveys the intended use case: agents needing spot-perp basis, funding, and the joint positioning read, with the 'disagreeing is interesting' line highlighting when the combined view matters. It gives input eligibility constraints but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool routing.

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