Queries live funding rates and mark-index spreads from centralised perp indices to locate yield arbitrage opportunities. Matches: arbitrage finder, funding rate arbitrage, cross-chain yield, spot-perp spread, perp funding rates checker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| min_funding_rate | No | Minimum absolute funding rate percentage threshold (default: 0.0001) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the tool as querying live data but does not mention whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or if it is read-only. The description lacks important behavioral context.
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 concise, with two clear sentences. The first sentence conveys the core function, and the second provides keyword tags. No wasted words.
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 there is no output schema, the description should hint at the return format. It mentions 'locate yield arbitrage opportunities' but does not specify the structure or fields of the results. The tool is simple, so the description is adequate but not fully 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not add additional meaning beyond the existing parameter description for min_funding_rate. Baseline 3 applies.
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 queries live funding rates and mark-index spreads to locate yield arbitrage opportunities, and lists matching use cases. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like getFundingRates.
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 the list of matches (e.g., arbitrage finder, funding rate arbitrage) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getFundingRates.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality, e.g., auditNetworkHost combines DNS, SSL, and header checks that have dedicated tools (auditDnsSecurity, checkSslExpiry, auditSecurityHeaders). Multiple weather and blockchain tools also overlap in scope, making it difficult for an agent to choose the right tool.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., getAirQuality, checkDnsPropagation), but a few deviate (agentPreflight, capabilitiesDiff) and some use compound names (depositCoordinationBounty). Overall, the pattern is clear but not perfectly uniform.
With 56 tools, the server is far too large for a coherent MCP surface. The number suggests a collection of many unrelated APIs rather than a focused tool set. A typical well-scoped server has 3-15 tools.
While the tool set covers many domains, each domain has shallow coverage. For example, blockchain tools miss basic transaction sending and contract deployment; weather tools lack forecasts. The 'requestMissingData' endpoint acknowledges gaps, but the current surface is severely incomplete for a general-purpose API.