get_funding_rates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It adds useful context that the tool covers exactly four exchanges and returns spread analysis, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, or any other behavioral traits. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the key action and scope. It is concise with no unnecessary words or repetition. Every part serves a 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 tool has two simple parameters and no output schema. The description mentions rates with spread analysis but does not detail the exact output structure (e.g., JSON format, key field names). Siblings with similar outputs are not referenced. Some additional detail on the return format would improve completeness.

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% with both parameters ('symbols' and 'minSpread') already described with clear descriptions and defaults. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Compare', the resource 'funding rates', and specifies the exact 4 exchanges (Pacifica, Hyperliquid, Lighter, Aster). It also distinguishes itself by mentioning 'spread analysis' and that it returns rates per symbol, which differentiates it from siblings like 'get_funding_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 clearly implies this tool is for comparing funding rates across all four exchanges, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison with siblings.

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