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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the output components (8h rate, annualized yield, next settlement time) and data sources (Binance and OKX), which is useful for an agent to understand what to expect. It does not mention side effects, but none are implied for a read-only data retrieval.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the key information (current funding rates) and then specifying the return fields. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main return values and data sources. It could explain the exact format of the 8h rate, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with the 'symbol' parameter clearly described as a crypto symbol with examples. The description adds no further parameter details, but since the schema fully documents the parameter, 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 it returns current perpetual funding rates from Binance and OKX, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('perpetual funding rates'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_cash_carry and get_spread, which serve other purposes.

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 usage when funding rate data is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Context is mildly clear but no direct guidance is given.

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