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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data is 'current', includes a crowding read, and requires 'Bearer-auth with a Pro API key for real-time data'. It does not cover error conditions or rate limits, but the core behavior is clear.

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: behavior first, then example queries, parameter format, and auth requirement. Every sentence adds information and none is redundant.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential invocation details: what it returns, how to specify the coin, and the auth requirement. The only minor gap is explaining when not to use this tool versus the sibling rate/crowding tools.

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 only provides the parameter name and type with zero coverage, and the description compensates by defining `coin` as a ticker with the example 'btc'. This is sufficient for a single required parameter.

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 states the tool provides 'current perpetual funding rate and crowding read for a crypto coin', with concrete example queries. It is clearer than simply restating the title, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from overlapping siblings like leg_rates or perp_dashboard.

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?

It gives direct trigger examples ('what's the funding rate on <coin>', 'is funding positive') and identifies the intended read use. However, it does not mention when to prefer an alternative tool or state any exclusions.

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