chainpeek: Hyperliquid perp funding rates, hourly and annualised, with up to 7 days of history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: 60 s cache TTL, annualised = hourly x 24 x 365, 422 on unknown symbol with no charge, expected latency 0.3-2 s, price USD 0.002, and a 10-read/day free tier. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling a paid, open-world endpoint.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case and routing alternatives, and essentially every clause carries information (scope, return shape, cache, formula, error cost, latency, price, free tier, docs). It is a dense single block rather than a structured one, which makes the operational facts (price, latency) slightly harder to scan, but there is no filler to cut.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still summarises what comes back (hourly/annualised, mark, OI, 24 h volume). Errors, scope limits (Hyperliquid perps only), caching, cost, and docs URL are all covered, leaving no gap an agent would need to guess at.

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% and each parameter is already well documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds ordering semantics the schema omits (top markets ranked by absolute funding) and restates the symbol/history behaviour, giving modest extra value beyond the structured fields.

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+resource+scope: Hyperliquid perp funding rates, hourly and annualised, top markets by absolute funding or a single symbol with up to 7 days of hourly history. It explicitly separates itself from compare_funding_rates (cross-venue dYdX comparison) and rank_funding_carry (best pair across five venues), so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering condition ('when an agent needs what a Hyperliquid perp costs to hold, or whether funding is flipping, before sizing a trade') and names two sibling alternatives with the exact condition that selects each. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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