Funding Screener

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by defining direction semantics (long = positive rates/longs pay, short = negative) and the D1 funding_regime headroom sub-block sourced from fundingInfo. No contradiction with annotations.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, direction semantics are compactly defined, and a concrete example is included with no filler. The wording is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause provides useful information.

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 covered structurally. The description covers the ranking dimensions, the optional parameter semantics, and a usage example, which is complete for a two-optional-parameter read-only tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It fully defines `direction` including the default and the long/short meaning, and the example clarifies that `top` selects the number of ranked markets. It does not explicitly state that `top` is a count, but the example is sufficient.

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 action — one-call ranking of all markets by funding metrics — and identifies the calculated sub-block funding_regime. It is clear about what the tool produces, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like funding_overview or mark_index_divergence, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 phrase 'one-call ranking of ALL markets' implies this is the go-to tool for cross-market funding comparisons, and the example shows a typical invocation. It gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, so usage context is only implied.

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