get_hip3_funding_current

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the tool's safety is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: symbols are case-sensitive and returns the latest funding rate and timestamp. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.

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, single-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers what the tool does, its key behavioral quirk (case sensitivity), and what it returns. No gaps identified.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'coin' parameter including case sensitivity and examples. The tool description adds only a single example ('km:US500') and reinforces case sensitivity, which adds marginal value over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool gets the current HIP-3 funding rate for a coin, with a specific verb and resource. The case-sensitivity note adds precision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_hip3_funding (which may return history) or get_funding_current (non-HIP3), relying on naming conventions alone.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies 'current' suggests latest data, but does not mention tools like get_hip3_funding for historical data or get_funding_current for non-HIP3. The agent receives no strategic selection advice.

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