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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on the most critical trait: it discloses that the call costs $0.02 via x402 in USDC on Base or Solana, which an agent must know before invoking. It also explains what the data represents (funding normalized to hourly and APR) and what the optional history windows cover, though it omits error behavior, rate limits, and failure modes for the paid path.

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 payment cost is front-loaded in the very first clause, which is exactly what an agent needs before committing, and the rest is dense with no filler. It reads as a run-on sentence with heavy comma chaining, which slightly hurts scannability, but every clause conveys distinct 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does: funding rate, interval, next funding time, cheapest venue per side, carry spread, history series, and a full board mode. For a zero-required-parameter tool over four venues this is close to complete, with only error/payment-failure behavior left unaddressed.

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 each parameter is already documented, including the enum values for history and tickers, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates schema content (history windows, tickers='all' returning the board) and adds only marginal framing such as history applying to a single ticker and min_spread_apr being a board filter.

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 names the exact resource (stock-perp funding), the four data sources (trade.xyz, Aster, Lighter, OKX), and the normalization applied (hourly and APR). It also enumerates the returned fields — interval, next funding time, cheapest venue to long/short, carry spread — which separates it cleanly from siblings like get_quote or get_token_premium.

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 its parameter notes (single ticker with optional history, or tickers='all' for the board), but never states explicitly when to pick this over siblings such as get_history or get_quote. There are no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the payment notice, so the agent must infer the selection conditions.

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