Skip to main content
Glama

AgentFeed

by io.github.seekdaseek
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Cross venue funding

get_funding_cross
Read-onlyIdempotent

Funding rate for ANY USDT perp across Bybit, OKX and Hyperliquid in one call, with the cross-venue spread and a crowding read. Costs 0.01 USDC per call (x402, USDC on Solana or Base).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolNoUSDT perp symbol e.g. SOLUSDT, BTCUSDT (default SOLUSDT)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesthe get_funding_cross payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_funding_cross
toolYesthe tool that produced this payload

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / symbol / description
      Previous value: -"USDT perp symbol e.g. SOLUSDT"New value: +"USDT perp symbol e.g. SOLUSDT, BTCUSDT (default SOLUSDT)"
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "symbol"
-]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "the get_funding_cross payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_funding_cross",
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "const": "get_funding_cross",
+      "description": "the tool that produced this payload",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "tool",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/no-destructive, so the safety profile is set. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a per-call cost of 0.01 USDC via x402 on Solana or Base, which is important for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It does not mention rate limits or latency, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the capability and venues before the billing detail. No filler; every clause carries distinct information (coverage, outputs, cost, payment rails).

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?

With an output schema present, the return shape need not be explained, and the one parameter is fully covered by the schema. Purpose, venues, and cost are all stated, so the definition is essentially complete; only the routing against sibling funding tools is left implicit.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single well-documented 'symbol' parameter including an example and default. The description adds nothing about symbol handling, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the work and the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('funding rate for ANY USDT perp') and a precise scope: three named venues (Bybit, OKX, Hyperliquid) plus the derived outputs (cross-venue spread, crowding read). This implicitly distinguishes it from the many single-venue funding siblings, but it never names an alternative, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'in one call' implies the multi-venue use case versus per-venue calls, and the price note signals it is a paid convenience tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no sibling is named, leaving the choice against get_funding_rate, get_funding_extremes, etc. to inference.

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

All AgentFeed toolsInspect
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