get_funding_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's purpose and outputs without mentioning any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, no side effects, auth requirements). It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but adds minimal value beyond the name.

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: the first states the tool's function and outputs, the second gives a use case. No redundant words, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 description explains what the tool returns (cumulative totals, annualized rates, per-arb-position breakdown), compensating for the lack of an output schema. It could detail how parameters affect analysis or the output format, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's value and general behavior.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema—it does not elaborate on period, exchange, or symbol usage. The schema already mentions period options and defaults.

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 'Analyze funding income across exchanges' and lists specific outputs (cumulative totals, annualized rates, per-arb-position breakdown). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_funding_rates (which likely provides current rates rather than analysis) and get_pnl_analysis.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Great for tracking funding arb profitability.' This implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_funding_rates or get_pnl_analysis.

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