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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: keyless access, that rates depend on venue-provided data, and that it is descriptive only. This enriches the behavioral understanding without contradicting the annotations.

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: three short sentences that each add distinct information—what the tool provides, access requirements, and data nature. There is no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple nature of the tool, the description covers the core purpose, limitations, and access. An output schema exists (per context signals), so return values are already defined. It could be more explicit about when to use it relative to other market data tools, but it is largely complete for this context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with the 'pair' parameter description explaining defaults, bare symbol handling, and the non-comparability of rates due to venue-specific intervals. The main description adds little new parameter semantics, so the 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 the tool as providing per-venue funding rates for a single trading pair, including predicted next rate and payout time where available. This resource is unique among the sibling tools, none of which mention funding rates, so it distinguishes the tool effectively.

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 clear context: the tool is keyless on any streamed pair and is descriptive market data only, implying it is safe to use for read-only information needs. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the unique purpose makes such guidance less critical.

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