chainvectorFundingWeighted

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the weighting behavior (open interest weighting, large venues dominate, outliers don't distort), which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention return format, units, or update frequency, but the 'one number' phrase conveys the output shape.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the tool's identity and explanation. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the metric's purpose, weighting logic, and output as a single number. It could add details like data source, freshness, or units, but the core decision-making context is present.

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 input schema fully documents the optional 'base' parameter with a clear example and instruction to omit for all assets. The description adds the 'per asset' context but does not explain parameter syntax beyond the schema, so baseline coverage is sufficient.

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 identifies the tool as a composite funding metric per asset, with specific verb 'summarizes' and resource 'OI-weighted funding composite'. It distinguishes itself from sibling funding tools like chainvectorFundingCurrent by emphasizing open-interest weighting and market-wide aggregation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a single, venue-weighted funding number is needed, with large venues dominating and small outliers not distorting the value. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the weighting rationale implies differentiation from simpler funding tools.

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