compare_funding

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

Discloses concurrency and that it surfaces the highest and lowest paying venues with spread. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication, or what happens if symbol/exchange not found. Moderate 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action, no redundant text. Every sentence adds value.

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 the simple behavior and existence of output schema, the description is fairly complete. It could mention that exchanges parameter defaults to all, but that is in schema. Minor gaps in not specifying single-symbol constraint explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on parameter defaults or behaviors.

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?

Clearly states it compares funding rates for one perpetual symbol across exchanges, with a specific verb 'compare' and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like get_funding_rate and get_funding_rate_history by focusing on cross-exchange arbitrage.

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?

Implies use for funding rate arbitrage but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. No mention of when-not-to-use or specific context.

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