funding_spread

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a cost ('PAID ~$0.001 via x402'), which is a notable trait. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, or required permissions. The cost adds value but leaves gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds cost context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 param, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns (spread across venues, min/max, basis) and the cost. It could be more specific about output format, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'symbol' (described as 'Ticker, e.g. BTC'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that. 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 the 'current funding-rate spread for one symbol across all venues (min/max venue, basis)', which is specific. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making it slightly less direct. It distinguishes from siblings like funding_history (history) and funding_screener (screener) but not explicitly from funding_arb.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use funding_spread instead of funding_arb or other related tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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