chainvectorFundingCurrent

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral aspects: normalization to a common scale, inclusion of countdown, and interpretation of extreme funding as a squeeze signal. This goes beyond the name and adds meaningful context, though it does not address return format or potential caveats.

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 deliver the core functionality and a practical interpretation. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter data query with no output schema, the description covers the data scope, normalization, countdown, and meaning of extreme funding. It lacks explicit return-format details but is otherwise 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%: the only parameter 'symbol' is fully described with a case-insensitive substring filter example. The tool description adds no additional detail about the parameter, so it relies on the schema's already-sufficient documentation.

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's function: providing current funding rates across every tracked perp venue, normalized to a common scale with countdown. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like chainvectorFundingWeighted and chainvectorFundingArbitrage.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool—when you need current funding rates across venues with a common scale and countdown. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for weighted funding use chainvectorFundingWeighted.'

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