Funding rates

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

Read-only safety is already covered by readOnlyHint, so the description only needs additive context. It does disclose the useful ranking-by-absolute-APR behavior when no symbol is supplied, but says nothing about pagination limits or the shape/size of the returned set.

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 tightly packed sentences with the capability stated first and the no-symbol behavior second. Every clause adds meaning 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?

For a read-only funding query with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (rate variants, payer side) and the default ranking logic. The only meaningful omission is how limit interacts with the ranked list.

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?

Coverage is 50%: the schema describes symbol well and even points to strike_list_markets, while limit is undocumented in both places. The description's 'one market or all' clarifies symbol optionality but gives no meaning to limit, so it only marginally compensates for the gap.

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 (get funding rates) and resource (markets), and adds the concrete output content: hourly/8h/APR rates and who pays. The 'one market or all' scope also lets an agent distinguish it from snapshot or orderbook siblings.

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 explains the conditional behavior when no symbol is given (ranking by absolute APR to surface carry opportunities), which implies a good use case. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like strike_market_snapshot or strike_get_sentiment, nor any exclusions.

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