automaton

funding_rates__spread

Cross-venue funding dispersion per asset: highest vs lowest annualized venue and the carry in bps/day. Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base (eip155:8453), paid with x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"]. HTTP: GET https://api.firstmention.uk/s/funding-rates/spread

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "funding_rates__spread"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbols`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / symbols / description
```
Removed value: -"Comma-separated symbols, up to 25"
```
- removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "symbols"
-]
```
Changed2 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / symbols / description
```
Added value: +"Comma-separated symbols, up to 25"
```
- addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "symbols"
+]
```

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 1, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / assets

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Alias for symbols",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / symbol

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Single perpetual symbol, e.g. BTC",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / symbols / description

Removed value: -"Comma separated symbols, max 10 (/batch) or 25 (/spread)"

removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "symbols"
-]
```

AddedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuinely useful non-schema context: the cost ($0.01/call in USDC on Base, eip155:8453), the x402 payment location in params._meta, and the HTTP GET transport (implying a read-only operation). It still omits rate limits, error/failure behavior when payment is absent, and what happens when no symbols are supplied, which are material for a paid endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the analytical output first and the commercial/transport details second. Nothing is padded, though the pricing sentence is dense with chain ID and payment-path syntax that could be split for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers what the tool returns conceptually and how to pay for it, which is the core need. It falls short on the optional `symbols` parameter's semantics and on any statement about default scope, leaving an agent guessing whether omitting the argument means 'all assets'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter `symbols` has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all — no format (comma-separated list? single ticker?), no default behavior when omitted, and no case/normalization rules. With coverage this low the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: cross-venue funding dispersion per asset, returning highest vs lowest annualized venue plus carry in bps/day. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from generic rate-fetching siblings, but it never names the adjacent tools (funding_rates__carry, funding_rates__best, fundinglens__best) that an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The reader can infer this is the comparison/dispersion view rather than a raw rate listing, but nothing states that, and no alternative tool is named as the fallback for single-venue rates or for carry-only queries.

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

All automaton tools Inspect

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

Need Help?