fin-data-mcp-server

Crypto funding rate (OKX, perps)

crypto_funding_rate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve current funding rate and next funding time for a perpetual swap. Optionally fetch recent historical funding rates with a specified limit.

Instructions

Current funding rate + next funding time for a perpetual swap. Set history: true for recent historical funding rates.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "instId": "<instId>"
    },
    "name": "crypto_funding_rate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Only with history
`instId`	Yes	Perpetual swap id, e.g. BTC-USDT-SWAP
`history`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool provides current and historical rates, but does not detail other behavioral aspects like rate limits or data freshness.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the core functionality. It is well-structured for quick understanding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns (current funding rate, next funding time, or historical rates). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 67% (instId and limit have descriptions, history lacks). The description adds value for the history parameter by explaining its effect, but does not mention the limit parameter specifically. This partial compensation keeps the score at baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it provides the current funding rate and next funding time for a perpetual swap, and also mentions the option for historical rates. This distinctly defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling cryptocurrency tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for funding rate data and specifying the perpetual swap ID. It mentions setting history flag for historical rates, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like crypto_ticker or crypto_open_interest.

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

Deploy Server