Perp funding rates — Binance USDT-M premium index. Params: { symbol?: string } default top set (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/funding-rates Payment: x402 protocol — send X-PAYMENT header with base64 payment payload, or X-API-Key / X-Owner-Key / Bearer token to bypass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only a title annotation, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It provides valuable behavioral context: per-call cost (0.001 USDC), payment protocol (x402 header, base64 payload), and alternative auth methods (X-API-Key, Bearer token). It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, but that is inherent from 'funding rates'. This goes beyond typical descriptions.
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, with only three sentences covering purpose, parameters, default behavior, HTTP equivalent, and payment. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant information.
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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, optional parameter, default behavior, HTTP endpoint, and payment. It doesn't describe the return format, but with no output schema this is a minor gap. Overall, sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 no properties, but the description introduces and documents the optional 'symbol' parameter with a default behavior ('default top set'). This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema, effectively compensating for the empty schema and providing clear guidance on parameter usage.
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 resource: 'Perp funding rates — Binance USDT-M premium index.' It specifies the exchange and contract type, distinguishing it from broader siblings like 'perp_funding_aggregator'. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'Get' or 'List', so purpose clarity is strong but not perfect.
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 through 'default top set' and 'Params: { symbol?: string }', indicating that omitting symbol returns a top set while providing a symbol fetches specific data. It also gives HTTP equivalent and payment instructions, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like 'binance_funding' or 'perp_funding_aggregator'.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are exact duplicates (e.g., wallet_analysis/wallet_analyzer, honeypot_check/rugpull_detector, defi_yield/defi_yield_rates) with identical descriptions, and many overlapping scanners (squeeze_scanner variants). An agent cannot reliably distinguish these tools.
Names are all snake_case, but conventions vary wildly: some are resource names (btc_price), some are actions (list_magnets), some are generic utilities (calculator), and duplicates use different naming patterns for the same function (wallet_analysis vs wallet_analyzer). No consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern.
139 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold. The scope is a grab-bag of unrelated domains (crypto, FDA, SEC, utilities, web scraping), suggesting no curation.
The set is a shallow pile of read-only queries and utilities with no lifecycle management for any one domain. Many sub-areas have only one or two tools, and duplicates occupy slots where distinct operations should be. The lack of a clear domain makes completeness impossible to assess, but the surface is redundant rather than comprehensive.