Funding rates across the ~30 most traded Binance perps

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which the description agrees with by describing a read-only query. Beyond that, it adds valuable behavioral context: contracts without a live funding print are skipped, returns include funding rate per settlement interval, 24h open interest change, and 24h price change, and positive funding means longs pay shorts. 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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: trigger/scope, alternative routing, and return field details. It is front-loaded with the main use case and contains minimal redundancy, though the scope ('~30 most traded Binance perps') is restated in both the title and the return-spec sentence.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and behavior. It covers the data returned per symbol, the skip condition, the row count, and the meaning of positive funding. There is no missing information needed to invoke the tool correctly, aside from minor unit details for the 24h changes.

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 100% for the single optional symbol parameter, with examples (BTCUSDT or BTC) and the default behavior (omit to get all 30 rows). The description's mention of 'funding rate of one specific coin' aligns with the schema but does not add new semantic content, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with the specific trigger ('when the user asks for the full current funding table...') and names the exact resource and scope (~30 most traded Binance perps, 28-30 rows). It also states the alternative for top-10 rankings (get_top_movers), distinguishing this tool from the closest sibling. The return fields are listed, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: for the full current funding table or the funding rate of one specific coin. It also gives an explicit exclusion: use get_top_movers for a pre-ranked top-10 of the most extreme funding rates. This is clear routing with no inference needed.

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