funding_rates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful details: data is aggregated from up to three exchanges, uses a 3-minute cache, exposes cache age via `meta.cacheAgeSeconds`, and reports contributing-exchange count via `meta.exchangeCount`. It could mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only snapshot tool the key operational traits are covered.

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 opening phrase and the following explanation repeat the same information: 'Gate.io, MEXC, Kraken' and 'derived sentiment label' appear twice. The cache details are valuable and well-placed, but the redundancy makes the description less tight than it should be.

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 parameterless, no-output-schema data tool, the description gives enough context to invoke correctly: the source exchanges, the live/aggregated nature, the cache semantics, and the key metadata fields. It doesn't fully enumerate response fields, but the low complexity and zero parameters reduce the need.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it instead clarifies the data scope (tokens, exchanges, sentiment), which is the relevant selection logic for this parameterless tool.

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 explicitly says 'Get live perpetual futures funding rates' and identifies the resource (top tokens across Gate.io, MEXC, Kraken) and derived sentiment label. It clearly implies a live snapshot versus the history sibling, though it doesn't explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 word 'live' and the 3-min cache imply this is for current funding-rate data, and a sibling 'funding_rates_history' exists as an alternative. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the distinction to inference.

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