funding_screener

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a 'preview' (read-only) and 'no wallet required,' which implies low risk. However, it does not describe rate limits, data freshness, or whether the output is real-time or delayed, which is acceptable for a preview tool but leaves some uncertainty.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key differentiators (free, no wallet, multiple exchanges). No unnecessary words, and front-loaded with the core action.

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 simplicity (one optional param, read-only preview), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, scope (20+ exchanges), and requirements (none). Missing details about output format or return structure are acceptable since no output schema exists and the tool is a simple data feed.

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% for the single optional parameter 'symbol' with an example. The tool description does not add additional parameter details, but the schema already provides clear meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description neither adds nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 tool provides a preview of current cross-venue perpetual funding rates across 20+ exchanges, with specific examples. The verb 'preview' and resource 'funding rates' are precise, and it implicitly differentiates from siblings like funding_arb or funding_history by focusing on a broad overview.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like funding_arb, funding_history, or funding_spread. The description mentions it's free and requires no wallet, but does not specify contexts where this tool is preferred or when to use the optional symbol filter.

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