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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what data is returned (current funding rates) but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, data freshness, pagination behavior, or how 'current' is defined. The lack of behavioral context beyond the basic return value is a gap.

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 one sentence followed by a compact parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids excessive detail. The parameter documentation is economical and directly useful.

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 simple read tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the parameters and the general return type. However, it omits details like whether the response includes multiple exchanges at once, the structure of the returned rates, and whether results are sorted. These are minor gaps, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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: it explains that 'asset' is a symbol like 'BTC', 'exchange' is an exchange name like 'binance', and 'limit' has a default of 20 and max of 50. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving current funding rates for perpetual futures across exchanges, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('funding rates'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like get_funding_arbitrage or get_funding_schedule, though the 'from all exchanges' scope provides some distinction.

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 lists the parameters inline, which implies usage context (asset, exchange, limit) but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_funding_arbitrage or get_basis_history. There is no exclusion criteria or explicit when-to-use guidance.

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