hl_predicted_fundings

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the venue scope and UI reference but does not disclose data freshness, calculation methodology, whether the call is read-only, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency beyond the tool's 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?

The description is a single sentence that immediately states the core purpose and venue list. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the core purpose of returning predicted funding across venues. However, it lacks any usage context, behavioral caveats, or comparison to similar tools, making it minimally complete for a simple prediction tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description doesn't need to compensate for any missing parameter information. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.

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 states 'Predicted funding across venues' with an explicit venue list (HlPerp / BinPerp / BybitPerp), making it clear that the tool returns predicted funding data. It distinguishes itself from likely historical funding tools by using 'predicted' and references the UI component for additional context. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', so it's not a full 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hl_funding_history or hl_user_funding_history. The description offers no exclusions, no alternative naming, and no decision criteria, leaving the agent without a basis to choose this over sibling tools.

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