crypto_funding_rateRetrieve OKX perpetual contract funding rates to determine whether long or short positions pay fees. Use this to gauge market sentiment and funding cost direction.
获取OKX永续合约的资金费率，正费率表示多头付费给空头
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | 币种，格式: BTC 或 ETH 或 BTC-USDT | BTC |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds OKX as the data source, restricts scope to perpetual contracts, and explains the sign convention. However, it does not mention the funding-rate interval (e.g., 8-hourly), whether the data is current or historical, or the units/format of the returned value.
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?
The description is a single dense sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately adds the key interpretive detail, making it highly efficient.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It adequately conveys what the tool does and the source, but it omits details an agent might need, such as the effective period behind the rate and the response shape. For a one-parameter read-only tool, this is minimal but not fully complete.
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%: the single 'symbol' parameter is already documented with format examples (BTC, ETH, BTC-USDT). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the tool gets the OKX perpetual contract funding rate with a specific verb ('获取') and resource. It also clarifies that a positive rate means longs pay shorts, which distinguishes it from other crypto data tools like crypto_prices or crypto_open_interest.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, the absence of any comparison or usage context leaves an agent to infer the applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.