Funding Carry Screener

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, the description discloses that funding_history is fetched only for topN coins and only appears on rows where that call succeeded. This conditional, partial-success behavior is useful and does not contradict the 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?

Three purposeful sentences: core ranking behavior, funding-history nuance, and a worked example. No filler, and the most important 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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the data source, parameter choices, returned fields, and the conditional funding_history behavior. An agent has enough information to decide and invoke it correctly.

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 fully compensates: it defines metric options (premium default; oi/volume), topN as the number of ranked rows to return, and illustrates usage with a concrete example.

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 ('Rank'), a resource ('ALL perps'), a ranking metric, and an output shape (topN rows with premium, oi, dayVolume, markPx). The funding_history detail also distinguishes it from the funding_history sibling tool.

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 makes the use case clear: screen and rank perps by premium, oi, or volume and return the top N. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the 'fundingHistory rows are fetched ONLY for the topN coins' warning implies it is not a full funding-history endpoint.

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