funding_oi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data sources and derived outputs (7-day average funding, 24h OI change, long/short bias), which tells the agent what is precomputed rather than raw. It does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, latency, or refresh cadence, so it remains incomplete for a read-only aggregate.

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 core sentence is well front-loaded and information-dense, but it is repeated verbatim with no added value, wasting roughly half the description. Trimming the duplicate would make this tight and effective.

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-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned metrics (funding, 7d average, 24h OI change, long/short bias) and the source venues. Only the absence of usage routing and operational constraints keeps it from a 5.

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 single symbol parameter is fully documented in the schema (base symbol mapped to <SYMBOL>USDT perpetual). The description adds no syntax or mapping detail beyond the example, so 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 verb+resource (aggregated perpetual-futures funding rate & open interest) plus the sources (Binance + Bybit) and derived metrics. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like long_short_ratio, basis, or orderbook. The duplicated sentence adds noise but does not obscure the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. Siblings such as long_short_ratio and basis cover adjacent derivatives metrics, yet the description never names them or states a selecting condition. The example URL gives invocation format but not usage context.

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