coinalyze_funding_rates

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses paid nature, pricing ($0.01), required authorization (x402 v2), and return structure (per-exchange rates, OI-weighted aggregate, divergence, max/min). Does not explicitly state read-only or non-destructive behavior, but implied by data-fetch nature.

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?

Description is packed with useful information in a logical order: purpose, venues, return fields, pricing, payment. Each sentence earns its place, though slightly long. Could be trimmed slightly but still concise.

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 no output schema, description covers all key aspects: input, payment, return fields, and error handling (402). Adequately prepares an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by providing example tickers for symbol and explaining the role of _payment in detail, including the accept-list behavior.

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?

Specific verb 'Fetch' paired with precise resource 'perpetual-futures funding-rate intelligence for a given base asset'. Lists 17 venues, clearly distinguishing from any potential sibling tools.

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 instructs when to include the _payment parameter for full response and what happens without it (returns 402 accept-list). Mentions target audience (perp-arbitrage bots). No direct alternatives named, but context is clear.

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