get_funding_rates

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a per-call cost of 0.008 USDC via x402 micropayment on Base (an auth/payment requirement) and an explicit data-quality caveat that fees and basis risk are excluded from the spread comparison. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the comparison caveat, then the cost. Every sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry return-shape information; it conveys that both current and predicted rates are returned as spreads, which is reasonably complete for a two-optional-param read tool. It stops short of describing per-asset field structure or ordering, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 both parameters (asset, min_spread) are already fully documented, including the basis-point unit and the omit-for-all-assets behavior. The description adds context about spreads being 'indicative' and fee-excluded, which mildly informs min_spread, but does not extend parameter meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get hourly perpetual funding rates') and names the exact data sources (Hyperliquid, dYdX v4), so the agent knows precisely what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_dex_quotes or scan_yields, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 mention that 'current and predicted rates are compared as indicative spreads' implies the arbitrage-comparison use case, and the min_spread parameter reinforces it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative tool, so guidance is only implied.

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