funding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response shape for a tool that returns three distinct metrics.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the core action and data types are front-loaded immediately.

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 read tool this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify how the coin is specified and what the returned metrics represent. It leaves an agent to infer the input mechanism entirely.

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 exposes no parameters (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description adds that the operation is for 'one coin,' but it never names the coin parameter or its expected format, leaving a gap that the schema also does not fill.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and concrete resources (funding, mark, open interest) scoped to one coin. It does not name or contrast with the sibling funding_extremes, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-tool guidance is provided. The phrase 'for one coin' hints at single-coin scope but does not tell an agent when to choose this over markets, funding_extremes, or other siblings.

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