market_get_funding_rates

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns funding rate, time, and mark price, and notes the data source (Binance). It also signals deprecation, which is important for an agent weighing tool choice. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation warning, and every sentence provides distinct value: deprecation guidance, functional description, return fields, and use case. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with annotations and full schema, the description is almost complete. It explains the purpose, return fields, and deprecation alternatives. The only gap is the ambiguity of 'one or all symbols' given that the schema marks 'symbol' as required, plus the behavior of 'limit' in relation to 'current' rates is not fully clarified. Still, it is functionally adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (both symbol and limit have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to 'symbol' by saying 'one or all symbols', which goes beyond the schema's example-based description. It does not add detail on 'limit' beyond the schema, but the extra symbol semantics justifies a 4.

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 fetches current perpetual futures funding rates from Binance, specifying the resource (funding rates) and scope (one or all symbols). It distinguishes itself from sibling market tools by naming specific return fields (funding rate, funding time, mark price) and the exchange source.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Deprecated: prefer ccxt_public_call and ccxt_describe_exchange for new integrations', giving clear when-not-to-use guidance and naming alternatives. It also provides a use case ('tracking carry costs in leveraged positions'), so usage context is well covered.

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