free_fundingFREE. Hyperliquid funding rate for BTC, ETH and SOL, delayed 15 min. perp_funding ($0.01) gives every coin live.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "free_funding"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation with no open-world side effects. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it is free, delayed by 15 minutes, and limited to BTC/ETH/SOL.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE' and immediately followed by the scope, delay, and paid alternative. Every phrase carries useful selection or usage 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 zero-parameter, read-only snapshot tool, the description covers coverage, cost, delay, and the paid alternative well. It does not describe the exact return shape (e.g., raw rate, interval, or format), which is a minor gap because no output schema exists.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste space explaining parameters that do not exist.
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 specific resource (Hyperliquid funding rate), the exact coverage (BTC, ETH, SOL), and the key limitation (delayed 15 min). It also distinguishes this tool from the paid sibling perp_funding, which offers live data for every coin.
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?
It explicitly frames the trade-off: this tool is free but delayed and limited to three coins, while perp_funding costs $0.01 and provides live data for every coin. That gives an agent a clear when-to-use rule and a named alternative.
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.