funding_oi

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the two exchange sources, the metrics computed (7-day avg funding, 24h OI change, bias signal), and implies it is a read-only aggregation. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it returns current or historical data, which would be helpful.

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 concise with a single sentence and an example. However, the first sentence is duplicated verbatim, which is unnecessary and slightly wasteful. The example is clear and helpful.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns (funding rate, OI, averages, bias) and data sources. It does not specify time ranges or data freshness, but the metrics imply historical and current context. Overall sufficient for the complexity level.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'symbol', including an example mapping to USDT perpetual tickers. The description does not add further semantics beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the tool provides aggregated perpetual-futures funding rate and open interest from Binance and Bybit, including specific metrics like 7-day average funding and long/short bias signal. It uses a specific verb ('aggregated') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'long_short_ratio' or 'basis'.

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 an example usage with symbol parameter, but does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when needing funding/oi vs. spot price or basis). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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