funding_rates

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

No annotations provided, so description covers behavioral traits: it returns annualized rates, breakdown, alert, and bias. It implies read-only data retrieval without destructive effects, though not explicitly stated. Could mention non-destructive nature.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Key information (exchanges, assets, signals, output) presented efficiently.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers return values (annualized rates, breakdown, alert, bias). Could mention any rate limits or pagination, but overall complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 has one string parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that the asset parameter filters to a single coin, compensating for schema gap.

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 retrieves perpetual futures funding rates across specific exchanges (Binance, Bybit, OKX) and assets (BTC/ETH/SOL/AVAX/LINK/ARB), with distinct signal categories. This differentiates it from siblings like open_interest or liquidations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., open_interest, liquidations). The description mentions signal-first approach and optional asset filtering, but lacks context for selection among many market data tools.

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