Skip to main content
Glama
bykarantelicom

bykaranteli-mcp

by bykarantelicom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Cross-exchange funding arbitrage opportunities

get_funding_arbitrage
Read-only

Compare funding rates across Binance, OKX, Bybit, Hyperliquid, dYdX and other perp venues to find the best long/short legs per symbol, with net annualized APR after fees.

Instructions

Call this when the user asks about funding arbitrage, funding rate differences between exchanges, or delta-neutral carry trades. Compares funding across every venue on the board, from Binance, OKX and Bybit to Hyperliquid, dYdX and the smaller perp venues fed by the venue snapshot, for 12 major perps and returns the best long/short venue per symbol with gross and net annualized APR (net of taker fees and weekly rebalance cost). Each row lists its first 5 venue legs; pass symbol for every leg of one perp. Pass detail "compact" for a shorter page or "full" for the whole answer.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailNoOptional. "compact": a shorter page than the default (fewer rows, newest points kept, rounded figures, long text cut, grids left out; every cut named in trimmed). "full" or true: the whole route answer, still under the 100,000 character ceiling (the largest boards answer the ceiling note then: narrow them with symbol, limit or days instead). Omitted or false: the default first page.
symbolNoOptional. One perp, e.g. BTCUSDT or BTC: its row with every venue leg.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • addedInput schema / properties / detail
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "enum": [
+        "compact",
+        "full"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Optional. \"compact\": a shorter page than the default (fewer rows, newest points kept, rounded figures, long text cut, grids left out; every cut named in trimmed). \"full\" or true: the whole route answer, still under the 100,000 character ceiling (the largest boards answer the ceiling note then: narrow them with symbol, limit or days instead). Omitted or false: the default first page."
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.36.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / symbol
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. One perp, e.g. BTCUSDT or BTC: its row with every venue leg.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the venue coverage, the 12-perp scope, the fact that APR is net of taker fees and weekly rebalance cost, and that each row lists only its first 5 venue legs unless symbol is passed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the usage trigger, then moves efficiently into behavior and parameter guidance. The venue-name list is somewhat long but earns its place by clarifying breadth of coverage; overall it is appropriately sized for the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape, and it does: best long/short venue per symbol with gross and net APR and limited venue legs per row. It covers the important calling context for a read-only analytics tool, though it could be slightly more explicit about pagination or page limits.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both detail and symbol are already well documented in the schema. The description largely mirrors that schema text, though 'pass symbol for every leg of one perp' adds a small amount of row-level context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and scope: it compares funding across venues for 12 major perps and returns the best long/short venue per symbol with gross and net annualized APR. It is clearly about cross-exchange funding arbitrage rather than general funding data, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_funding_heatmap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The opening sentence gives clear trigger conditions: funding arbitrage, funding rate differences between exchanges, or delta-neutral carry trades. It also explains how to use symbol and detail, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools