get_funding_rate_analysis

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

No annotations are present. The description only says 'Get funding rate analysis and extremes' without explaining any behavioral traits such as whether it is a read-only operation, rate limits, or what 'extremes' entails. The agent gets little insight beyond the tool name.

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 extremely short (one phrase). While concise, it lacks structure such as a full sentence or breakdown of functionality. It could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is too vague to be practically complete. Users cannot determine what 'analysis and extremes' specifically includes, which is problematic given many similar sibling tools.

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?

There is one parameter (symbol) with a schema description stating 'Trading symbol'. The tool description adds 'extremes' but does not clarify how the parameter affects the analysis or what values are valid. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does so minimally.

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 name clearly indicates the tool deals with funding rate analysis. The description adds 'extremes' hinting at extreme values. It is distinct from sibling tools, which cover different aspects of options and market analysis.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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