funding_rate_monthly

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses data permanence, aggregation source ('before purge'), exclusion of months with <20 records, no-auth requirement, 60 req/min rate limit, 5-min cache, and the dominantSentiment classification rule. This is unusually transparent behavior disclosure.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. The opening phrase 'Funding rate permanent monthly archive' repeats the tool name and 'permanent monthly archive' appears again in the next clause, adding slight redundancy. Still, every other sentence earns its place by covering fields, exclusions, auth, rate limits, and caching.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the exact row fields (month, symbol, avgRate, minRate, maxRate, dominantSentiment, daysInMonth), explains data availability and filtering, and covers operational constraints. For a read-only archive tool with one optional parameter, nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the query string syntax ('?symbol=BTC') and the filtering intent, but the schema already explains 'Omit to return all top-10 tokens.' Minimal additional semantic value, so a 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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('permanent monthly archive of perpetual funding rates per token'), with granular detail ('one row per token per calendar month'). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like funding_rates and funding_rates_history by emphasizing 'permanent monthly archive' and 'Never deleted.'

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 provides clear context: monthly aggregation, top-10 token coverage, permanent retention, and an optional symbol filter. This tells the agent what kind of historical analysis this tool serves. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool compared to funding_rates_history, so it does not reach a 5.

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