Perpetual funding rate for a coin on Hyperliquid: current hourly rate, annualized APR, mark & spot-oracle price, open interest, 24h volume, premium, plus cross-venue funding (Hyperliquid/Binance/Bybit). Send { coin }. Core signal for perp traders and funding-rate strategies. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/perps/funding]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | Yes | Perp symbol, e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data returned (rates, prices, OI, etc.) and that it is a paid tool ($0.005). However, it does not specify whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid coin names, or any rate limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.
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 paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('Perpetual funding rate for a coin on Hyperliquid'), then lists data fields and usage context, and ends with payment metadata. It is efficient with no filler, though slightly dense. Could be split into multiple sentences for readability, but remains concise.
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 only one required parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is fairly complete. It lists the major output fields (rate, APR, prices, OI, volume, premium, cross-venue) and mentions the payment requirement. Missing details like output format or pagination are acceptable for a simple lookup 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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'coin' parameter, with a clear example in the schema description. The tool description adds 'Send { coin }' which is redundant. It provides context that the coin is a perpetual symbol on Hyperliquid, but baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 explicitly states the tool provides 'Perpetual funding rate for a coin on Hyperliquid' and lists specific data fields (hourly rate, APR, prices, OI, volume, premium, cross-venue funding). The verb 'get' is implied, and the resource 'funding rate' is clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like perps_basis and perps_funding_arb by focusing on funding rates.
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 says 'Core signal for perp traders and funding-rate strategies,' implying usage context but not providing explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like perps_funding_arb or perps_basis. No when-not-to-use instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.