Get Funding Rate Analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool returns current funding rates, historical extremes, normalized scores, or whether it requires any permissions. 'Get' implies read-only behavior, but nothing else is disclosed.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is under-specified rather than concisely complete, so it earns only a middling score: economical but not adequately informative.

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 there are no annotations and the schema is minimal, the description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent. It does not clarify what 'extremes' means, what kind of analysis is performed, or how the output should be interpreted. The presence of an output schema reduces some return-value burden, but core behavior remains ambiguous.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the only parameter 'symbol' at all. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory from its name and default, but the description adds no meaning about formatting, supported values, or interpretation.

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 names a specific resource ('funding rate analysis') and the action ('get'), which lets an agent identify it among many sibling analysis tools. However, 'extremes' is vague and the description does not explicitly contrast it with related tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of whether it is for perpetual swaps, spot, or general market analysis. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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