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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: Bybit is the primary data source with Binance as fallback, and the tool is paid in USDC on Base. This gives agents practical knowledge about data provenance and cost without contradicting the 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 compact and front-loaded: use cases first, then data sources, then exclusions, then payment note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers when to use it, what data it aggregates, important exclusions, and payment context. Nothing essential for correct invocation or selection is missing.

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?

The schema fully documents the single 'symbol' parameter with examples (BTC, ETH, BTCUSDT), so the description does not need to add much. It implicitly connects the symbol to perpetual funding rates, but the schema already provides sufficient parameter semantics.

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 the tool aggregates perpetual futures funding rates from Bybit and Binance, with a specific use context of sentiment analysis and hedging timing. It also distinguishes itself from spot and security-related tools by explicit exclusions, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides strong when-to-use guidance: analyzing funding rates, long/short sentiment, and hedging before settlement periods. It also gives clear when-not-to-use exclusions for spot volume and token security checks, though it does not explicitly name which sibling tools should be used in those excluded cases.

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