funding_extremes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the underlying data source ('public hourly funding rate') and a windowed statistic. But it omits crucial details like window length, whether it returns the z-score itself or the extreme event, and whether it's a computation or a filtered list. This is partial behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, no waste, front-loaded with the core concept.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It doesn't clarify the output (z-score value vs. list of extreme funding events), the window definition, or the time resolution beyond 'hourly'. An agent could invoke it but would be unsure what to expect.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so per the rules a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds the semantic context of what the calculation represents, which is more than the empty schema provides.

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 states a computation (z-score of public hourly funding rate against a trailing window), which is a specific formula-oriented output rather than a simple verb+resource. However, it's not framed as 'what the tool returns' or 'what action it performs' — it reads like a formula fragment. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'funding', which likely returns the raw rate.

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 indication is given for when to use this tool versus the sibling 'funding'. An agent would need to infer that this is the derivative/statistical version. No exclusions or alternatives cited.

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