get_funding_ratesCurrent and accumulated funding rates for one coin on every exchange that lists it: current rate (% per settlement interval, stablecoin- and token-margined), accumulated 1d/7d/30d/1y, settlement interval hours, and next funding time. Includes the OI-weighted aggregate rate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Coin ticker, e.g. BTC |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output scope (per exchange, included metrics like current rate, accumulated periods, settlement interval, next funding time, and OI-weighted aggregate). It does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or that it is a read-only call, but the read-only nature is inherent. This is a strong behavioral disclosure for a data-fetch tool.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It packs in field specifics without excessive verbosity. Slightly long but every phrase adds value, so it earns a 4.
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 needs to enumerate the return contents, and it does so thoroughly (current rate, accumulated 1d/7d/30d/1y, settlement interval hours, next funding time, OI-weighted aggregate). It does not explain what happens for invalid symbols or when no exchange lists the coin, but for a simple parameter tool this is largely sufficient.
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 fully documents the single parameter 'symbol' with a clear description ('Coin ticker, e.g. BTC'). The tool description adds minor context ('for one coin') but does not significantly expand parameter meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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 states the tool returns 'Current and accumulated funding rates for one coin on every exchange that lists it', which is a specific verb ('get') and resource ('funding rates'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_price_history (prices) and get_exchange_breakdown (exchange data), making its purpose unmistakable.
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 when to use the tool (when funding rate data is needed) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state exclusions. It is clear that it is for a single coin across exchanges, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over related tools.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct data surface: list markets, single-coin summary, exchange breakdown, funding rates, market overview, price history, and exchange list. Even where data overlaps, the descriptions clearly delineate scope (e.g., get_coin_summary vs. get_funding_rates).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_* and one list_*), using clear, memorable resource nouns. No mixing of camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a crypto derivatives data API, providing enough granularity without bloat. Each tool earns its place and the count sits comfortably within the ideal range.
The surface covers current snapshots, historical time series, per-exchange breakdowns, funding details, market aggregates, and exchange metadata. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.