Deribit Perpetual Funding

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, which already convey non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the length parameter overrides the time range ('不受上面的时间范围影响'), which is a behavioral nuance not obvious from the schema. It also mentions the 'length' chart data addition, adding beyond annotations. No contradiction observed.

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?

A single compact sentence that conveys core purpose and the length parameter's behavior. No filler, no redundancy with schema descriptions. Front-loaded with the main query objective, then the additional feature. Perfectly concise for the information provided.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema. Description explains the main function and the special behavior of 'length'. For a read-only query tool with clear parameter definitions, this is adequate. However, it doesn't mention what the output looks like (no output schema) or potential edge cases like empty results, but the openWorldHint suggests flexibility in results. Given the complexity, it's quite complete.

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 already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating that 'length' returns additional chart data and that it's independent of the time range, which is not clear from the enum alone. The time unit (milliseconds) is reiterated in the description, reinforcing schema hints. This elevates beyond baseline.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool queries cumulative funding rates and funding rate history for perpetual contracts within a specified time range, and optionally returns chart data for a given length. It clearly identifies the resource (Deribit perpetual funding) and the action (query), but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like market quotes or trade volumes, though the funding-specific focus is unambiguous.

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 fetching funding data, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. The sibling tools are mostly price/history related, so an agent might infer this is for funding-specific needs, but the description doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention fallback options.

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