get_funding_rate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose two important traits: the data is cached and a prior subscription is required. It does not mention what happens if the subscription is missing, how stale the cache may be, or any rate-limit considerations, but the disclosed facts are genuinely useful.

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 extremely compact: one sentence plus an argument example. Every phrase earns its place—cache source, subscription prerequisite, and symbol format. There is no redundancy or 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 one-parameter cached-data getter with an output schema present, the description covers the core essentials: what the tool returns, where the data comes from, and the required precondition. Minor open questions like error behavior without a subscription or how recent the cached data is prevent a perfect score.

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 provides zero description for the single 'symbol' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that it is a trading pair and giving a concrete format example, 'BTCUSDT-PERP.BINANCE'. This adds meaningful value beyond the raw schema, though it could clarify allowed variations.

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 a specific verb ('获取/get') and resource ('资金费率/funding rate'), and adds useful scoping by saying the data comes from cache. This distinguishes it from related siblings like get_mark_price or get_index_price, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: the agent must pre-subscribe to funding_rate before calling this tool. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over sibling market-data tools or when not to use it, leaving the usage context only partially specified.

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