Johto Data

Johto Data Funding Rate Normalizer

funding_rate_normalize

Read-only

Normalize and compare caller-supplied funding records from any labeled venue or chain with explicit units, intervals and direction. NOT a live feed. No exchange requests or unlicensed market-data resale. Simple annualization is not APY. Costs $0.0009 USDC per call via x402. Without payment, the call returns the x402 payment requirements; retry with an X-PAYMENT or PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, or params._meta["x402/payment"].

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "records": "<records>"
    },
    "name": "funding_rate_normalize"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`records`	Yes	Caller-owned records with venue, symbol, rate, unit decimal/percent, intervalHours, convention positive_longs_pay/positive_shorts_pay, timestamp UTC ISO; optional chain. NOT a live feed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the commercial and protocol behavior: a $0.0009 USDC per-call x402 charge, and precisely what happens without payment (the call returns x402 payment requirements) plus the two retry mechanisms (X-PAYMENT / PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, or params._meta["x402/payment"]). It also warns that naive annualization is not APY, which is behavioral context an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the negative scoping ('NOT a live feed') follows immediately, so an agent skimming gets the essentials first. The payment mechanics in the final sentence are dense but necessary for a paid tool; the text is tight, though the pricing/retry block could be split for scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-argument, non-destructive computation tool with full schema coverage, the description covers scope, exclusions, pricing, payment retry path, and a key interpretation caveat. With no output schema present, a brief hint at the normalized result shape (what normalized fields come back) is the one remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by foregrounding the three semantic axes that govern correctness — explicit units, settlement intervals, and payer direction — and by flagging the annualization/APY distinction that affects how results should be read. It stops short of explaining how conflicting conventions across records are reconciled in the output.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb pair (normalize and compare), a specific resource (caller-supplied funding records), and the dimensions being reconciled (units, intervals, direction). It immediately disambiguates scope with 'NOT a live feed', so an agent can tell this is an offline computation over supplied data rather than a market-data fetch, which no sibling tool offers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear exclusionary guidance is given: 'NOT a live feed', 'No exchange requests or unlicensed market-data resale', and the caveat that simple annualization is not APY. What is missing is named alternatives — it never tells the agent which sibling to use when it actually wants live rates or when records are unlabeled, so routing is only partially resolved.

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

All Johto Data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?