Perp funding & open interest

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool is paid (up to $0.01 USDC per call on Base x402) and that payment is automatic, providing cost transparency. However, it does not discuss data freshness, exchange coverage, rate limits, or what happens on payment failure, which are relevant for a financial data tool.

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 two sentences plus a payment note, all front-loaded with the core function and usage. Every sentence adds value: first defines the data returned, second gives the use case, third explains payment. No wasted words.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. However, it lacks specifics on which exchanges are included, data frequency, or whether the output is current or historical, which would be helpful for a tool that informs leverage positioning.

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 single parameter `symbol` is fully described in the schema as 'Asset symbol (BTC, ETH, SOL...).' The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 it provides funding rates and open interest for a perpetual across exchanges, with a specific usage for reading leverage positioning. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools, which include token prices, wallet risks, and chain data but no other perp funding tool.

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 includes 'Use to read leverage positioning,' which gives a context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools, leaving the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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