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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the key output fields, which gives a reasonable picture of what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any limitations, timezone assumptions, or error conditions.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and output fields. The trailing 'Params: exchange, symbol' is somewhat redundant with the schema but does not significantly bloat the description.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the main purpose and output content, but it lacks details about when to use it vs. related funding tools and does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 input schema provides no property descriptions, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that exchange and symbol identify a perp on an exchange, which is useful context, but it does not specify formats, allowed exchanges, or symbol conventions.

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 resource as a funding schedule for a perpetual contract on a given exchange and enumerates the returned fields: current rate, interval hours, next payment time, and mark price. It is specific enough to be distinguished from siblings like get_funding_rates or get_funding_arbitrage, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_funding_rates or get_funding_arbitrage. The context implies a need for schedule details, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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