perps_cross_venue_fundingCompare borrow/funding APR + OI across Solana on-chain venues (Jupiter Perps, Adrena) and cross-chain reference (Hyperliquid, dYdX v4). Returns best entry per side, basis vs Hyperliquid, and arbitrage opportunities. SOL/BTC/ETH/BONK supported (with venue-specific availability).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | Yes | Asset to query | |
| include_reference | No | Include Hyperliquid + dYdX v4 reference rates |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (best entry, basis, arbitrage) and notes venue-specific availability for assets. However, it doesn't mention whether it's read-only, potential latency, or error conditions, though the verb 'compare' implies a safe read. It adds useful context beyond just the schema.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, followed by return values and supported assets. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds 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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality, returns, and supported assets. It lacks explicit details on output formatting or edge cases, but the information given is sufficient for basic use. The venue-specific availability caveat is a nice addition.
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%, so the parameter descriptions already explain 'market' and 'include_reference'. The description adds only a marginal note about venue-specific availability, which relates to the market enum. No additional syntax or format details are provided, so the baseline 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 a specific verb ('Compare') with a clear resource ('borrow/funding APR + OI across venues'), and lists supported assets. It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying cross-chain reference venues (Hyperliquid, dYdX v4), which differentiates it from the broader perps_venue_comparison tool.
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 for cross-venue funding comparison but does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools like perps_venue_comparison, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Only context is the functionality itself.
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.
With 32 tools, several have overlapping purposes, such as wallet_history vs portfolio_history (both track wallet portfolio over time) and smart_money_flow vs smart_money_trenches (both follow smart money movements). However, most tools have clearly distinct scopes, and detailed descriptions help differentiate them.
All tool names follow snake_case with a predictable verb_noun or noun phrase pattern (e.g., enrich_token, compare_wallets, perps_market_trend). The consistent structure makes the set easy to navigate, even the 'perps_' prefix group is uniform.
32 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold, making the surface feel heavy. While the breadth reflects the wide domain of Solana analytics, the sheer number can overwhelm agents and increase the chance of selecting the wrong tool.
The tool set covers most aspects of Solana token/wallet/perp analysis, including enrichment, comparison, trend tracking, smart money flows, and perp market structure. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct historical OHLCV endpoint, but the existing tools handle core workflows well.