Funding rates across the ~30 most traded Binance perps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: row count range (28-30), the fact that contracts without a live funding print are skipped, the exact returned fields, and the sign convention for funding. It does not cover rate limits or freshness/latency, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger and tightly packed, with no filler sentences. The second and third sentences are long and run-on, which mildly hurts scannability, but every clause carries 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?

For a single optional param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden itself (funding rate per settlement interval, 24h OI change, 24h price change) and covers the edge case of skipped symbols. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the symbol parameter already documents the BTCUSDT/BTC formats and the omit-for-all behavior. The description only restates the omitted-symbol default, so per the rubric baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (current funding table across ~30 most traded Binance perps) plus the single-symbol variant, and names the sibling (get_top_movers) it is distinct from. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

'Call this when the user asks for the full current funding table ... or the funding rate of one specific coin' gives an explicit trigger, and 'For a pre-ranked top-10 of the most extreme funding rates, use get_top_movers instead' provides an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it.

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