Funding Heatmap

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing row-level semantics: positive = longs pay shorts, exactly one of longs_pay/shorts_pay is true, zero-rate and low-OI markets are skipped, and the return envelope contains count_nonzero, top, summary, offset, and has_more. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral detail.

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?

Every sentence adds value: the ranking basis, side-payment semantics, OI guidance, row schema, exclusion rules, return envelope, and an example call. It is dense but well-organized and front-loaded with the core ranking concept before enumeration details.

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 that this is a read-only, filtered, paginated listing tool with no required parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is ranked, what fields appear per row, which rows are skipped, how to paginate, and a concrete example call. The output envelope is described even without needing a separate output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it explains min_oi_usd as a noise filter, mentions offset for pagination, and shows limit=15 in the example. It stops short of explicitly defining limit as the max number of rows returned, but the example and ranking context make this reasonably inferable.

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 exactly what the tool does: ranks all markets by absolute next funding rate (1h, annualized) and shows which side pays. The phrase 'All markets ranked by |next funding rate|' clearly identifies the resource and the organizing metric, distinguishing it from funding history or market detail tools.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: rows carry OI so agents can ignore micro-markets, and min_oi_usd should be raised to filter noise. It also explains pagination with offset when has_more is true. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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