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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the call costs $0.02 USDC and that the edge is pre-fee, which are important behavioral details. However, it does not describe what happens when no arbitrage exists, whether the call can fail, or any rate or data freshness considerations.

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 two sentences and every clause earns its place: it names the resource, the venues, the computed metric, the pre-fee caveat, and the cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps supplementary billing information at the end.

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 simple one-parameter read-only query tool, the description is mostly sufficient: it states venue scope, the metric, and the cost. However, there is no output schema and no description of return shape or edge-case behavior, so an agent must infer what the tool actually returns in a no-opportunity scenario.

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 already describes the only parameter, 'symbol', as a USDT perp symbol with the example SOLUSDT, so schema coverage is complete. The description adds 'USDT perp' context but does not materially extend the parameter meaning beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool provides: best bid/ask for a USDT perp across Bybit, OKX, and Hyperliquid, plus the best cross-venue edge in bps. It is specific about venues and the metric, and the phrase 'cross-venue edge' helps distinguish it from simpler quote tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets,' but the intent is still unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. It implies usage for checking cross-venue spread/arb opportunities, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The cost warning is useful, but it is not a usage guideline.

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