Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid)

Deribit funding over a window

market_deribit_funding_window

Read-onlyIdempotent

The funding Deribit's own get_funding_rate_value reports as having accrued on one instrument between two timestamps — a window total, not a snapshot rate. Costs $0.001 USDC per call. Byte-identical to GET /market/deribit-funding-window?instrument=BTC-PERPETUAL&hours=20.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hours`	No	look-back window in whole hours (max 720) (default 24)
`instrument`	Yes	Deribit instrument name, CURRENCY-SUFFIX (BTC-PERPETUAL, ETH-25SEP26) [required]

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ts`	No
`note`	No
`endMs`	No
`found`	No
`hours`	No
`stale`	No
`caveat`	No
`reason`	No
`source`	No
`startMs`	No
`instrument`	No
`annualizedPct`	No
`fundingOverWindow`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "annualizedPct": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "caveat": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "endMs": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "found": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "fundingOverWindow": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "hours": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "instrument": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stale": {
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "startMs": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "ts": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already state read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds useful context: cost per call ($0.001 USDC) and the exact endpoint mapping, which goes beyond the schema. It doesn't describe pagination or response format, but that is minor given the annotations and output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first defines the core behavior and distinguishes from snapshots, the second states cost and endpoint mapping. No filler, and the key distinction is front-loaded. Efficient and to the point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool is simple (2 params, clear schema, output schema exists) and annotations cover safety, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. It could mention that 'hours' must be an integer or the output fields, but these are minor given the strong schema coverage. The cost information is a bonus.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions (instrument format examples, hours default and max), so the description adds little beyond that. It does provide example values like BTC-PERPETUAL in the endpoint, which slightly reinforces the parameter format, but the schema already carries the majority of the semantic load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns the accrued funding on a single Deribit instrument over a window, contrasting it with a snapshot rate. It names the underlying API endpoint and example parameters, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like market_deribit_index or market_okx_funding_rate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for windowed funding totals rather than snapshot rates, and mentions cost per call, which helps with selection. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for snapshot funding or when to use them, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool for windowed queries.

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

All Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?