Per-venue funding matrix

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context: keyless access, descriptive-only data, and a developer-plan depth limitation. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, giving the agent a clearer picture of access and data constraints.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by useful access and limitation notes. The developer-plan URL is a minor addition but provides relevant upgrade context. No redundant or vague 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, data nature, keyless access, and venue-dependent payout time. It could mention output shape or error handling, but the provided context is largely sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

With only one 'pair' parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description mentions 'one pair' but does not clarify the expected format, whether the parameter is required (schema lists no required params), or what happens when omitted. This is a notable gap for the agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 that the tool provides per-venue funding rates for one pair, including predicted next rate and payout time when available. It identifies the resource (funding rates) and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on whales, liquidations, and market snapshots, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 useful context by noting it is keyless on any streamed pair and descriptive market data only, signaling read-only usage. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it for funding-rate needs.

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