Funding Overview

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

The annotations already establish read-only behavior and no destructive impact. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the data source mix across 1/2/4/8h intervals is 'flagged honestly', the count is approximate (~730), and the output includes cap/floor and interestRate fields. This gives an agent an honest picture of data granularity and scope beyond the annotated safety profile.

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 dense but efficient: one sentence covers the data source, coverage, fields, and an important data-quality caveat, followed by a compact parameter hint and a concrete example. Every element earns its place and the key scope information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema available, the description provides enough context: sources, coverage, output fields, sort semantics, and an example call. The only minor gap is that `limit` is not explicitly defined as a count of returned rows, though the example and parameter name make this reasonably inferable.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It fully documents `sort` with allowed values and the default ('rate'), and the example shows `limit=10`, implying it controls result count. However, the description never explicitly states that `limit` limits the number of returned rates, leaving some ambiguity for a parameter that the schema does not describe either.

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 identifies the resource: a funding overview panel aggregating premiumIndex ALL and fundingInfo, covering all ~730 funding rates with cap/floor, interestRate, and nextFundingTime. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', but the context and example make the intended operation obvious. The 'ALL' and 'all ~730' scope helps distinguish it from narrower siblings like funding_screener.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the tool is positioned as the broad, comprehensive funding panel for all markets. It provides the `sort` options and an example call, but does not state when to choose this over funding_screener or other sibling tools, nor what this tool is not for. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative comparison.

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