transfer_between_spot_and_perp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the parameters and does not mention side effects, confirmations, irreversibility, or any account requirements. It is not misleading, but it provides almost no behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a simple Args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is easily scannable.

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 the tool's simplicity (two parameters, straightforward operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core semantics of amount and direction. The only shortfall is the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., fees, reversibility), but that is already captured in the transparency dimension.

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 no description coverage (0%), so the description's Args section is the only explanation. It adds clear meaning: 'amount' is the amount to transfer, and 'to_perp' indicates direction (to perpetual vs. spot). This goes beyond the schema's bare types and defaults, though it could have specified units or currency.

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's function: 'Transfer funds between spot and perpetual accounts.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the directionality is further clarified by the 'to_perp' parameter. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like order placement or balance queries.

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 from its name and context—whenever funds need to be moved between spot and perpetual accounts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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