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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It doesn't state authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the data is real-time or delayed, or any other operational characteristics. The only behavioral hint is the symbol mapping to Binance/Bybit, which is helpful but insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is concise and directly explains the parameter. There is no wasted text.

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 no annotations, one parameter, and a present output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks usage context, behavioral details like data freshness or rate limits, and doesn't explain how the output is structured (though an output schema exists, so that's less critical). It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that the symbol is a base crypto symbol and that it's mapped to <SYMBOL>USDT perpetual on Binance/Bybit, which adds meaningful context about the parameter's expected format and behavior. However, it doesn't cover edge cases like case sensitivity or whether other exchanges are supported. Baseline for 1 param with 0% coverage would be lower, but the added mapping detail earns a 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieves funding rate and open interest for perpetual futures on a given crypto symbol. This is clear and identifiable, but the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like wickedapi_price or wickedapi_momentum, so it's not a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to prefer it over wickedapi_price or wickedapi_momentum, nor any conditions or exclusions. This is a clear gap.

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