binance_calculate_funding_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses fee direction rules, 8-hour settlement cycle, dynamic rate behavior, cumulative cost implications, and risk warnings. It also provides a detailed output example showing exact return structure, which is critical since no output schema exists.

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?

While quite long, the description is well-structured with emoji section headers, bullet points, and a full output example. The output example earns its length because without an output schema it is the only way to convey return format. However, it could be trimmed without losing essential information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers what the tool does, how it behaves, when to use it, what inputs are needed, what outputs to expect, and caveats/risks. The comprehensive output example fully compensates for missing structured output definitions.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a concrete usage example with BTCUSDT and explains how inputs map to outputs, but the schema already fully documents each parameter's meaning and constraints. The description doesn't materially enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 calculates the expected funding fee cost for USDT perpetual contracts, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling calculation tools like binance_calculate_position_size and binance_get_optimal_trade_size by focusing solely on funding cost estimation.

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 explicit applicable scenarios (long-term holders, arbitrage traders, risk systems, timing of entry/exit) and notes it applies only to USDT perpetuals (in schema). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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