collect_funding_fee

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the need for a PRIVATE_KEY, which implies authentication but does not explain side effects, reversibility, or what happens during collection. The tool likely mutates state (e.g., transfers funds), but this is not 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 a single sentence that states the primary action and a critical requirement. It wastes no words and front-loads the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 this is a financial mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the behavioral outcomes, edge cases, or prerequisites beyond a private key, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool. The schema covers parameters but not operational context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described in detail, including the pointer to get_positions for marketIndex. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given that the schema handles semantics effectively.

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 action: 'Collect accumulated funding fees for a position.' This is a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like claim or harvest_reward, which could overlap in function, so it lacks direct differentiation.

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 prerequisite ('Requires PRIVATE_KEY in .env.') and the schema hints to use get_positions for finding marketIndex, which offers some contextual guidance. Yet there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as claim or harvest_reward, so usage is only implied rather than clearly contrasted.

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