Perpetual funding and open interest

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

Annotations already declare it as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the data providers (Bybit and Binance) and specifying that funding is annualised and open interest is in USD and as a ratio to 24h volume.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that lists the returned metrics without filler. The sentence is dense but every clause contributes useful 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?

With no output schema and only one fully documented parameter, the description sufficiently covers what data is returned and its sourcing. Minor gaps like exact response shape or pagination are not critical for this read-only metric 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter already explains that a bare coin means a USDT perpetual. The description does not add further syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific resource (perpetual-futures data for a coin) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: funding rate, basis, open interest, and cross-exchange prices. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_price or get_market_overview, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 phrase "Useful for judging crowding and leverage" implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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