List Hyperliquid funding rates

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about optionally computing exact trailing-24h funding only for the returned page, which involves upstream requests, thus enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first clearly states the main purpose, and the second adds an important optional behavior. No redundancy or filler content.

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?

While the description covers the primary data returned and the optional trailing-24h feature, it omits details on sorting, filtering, pagination, and market type filtering. Given the 8-parameter complexity and availability of an output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps in parameter semantics.

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 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only vaguely implies the 'include_trailing_24h' parameter but does not explain 'limit', 'offset', 'sort_by', 'market_type', or other key parameters, leaving the agent to infer from default values and enums alone.

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 clearly states it lists current funding rates, open interest, 24h notional, and basis for main-perpetual and HIP-3 markets. It distinguishes itself by mentioning optional trailing-24h computation, setting it apart from siblings which focus on other aspects.

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 implies usage for listing funding data with optional trailing-24h calculation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hyperliquid_summarize_large_trader_positions or scan_cross_exchange_funding_spreads. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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