funding-apr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the result is annualised and accumulated, but does not disclose permissions, data source behavior, error conditions, pagination, or return format.

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 compact sentence with no wasted text and is front-loaded with the core concept. Its brevity is efficient, though the same brevity contributes to gaps covered under other dimensions.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain return values, timestamp units, symbol semantics, or how annualisation and accumulation are computed.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate but does not. It vaguely implies a position symbol and a time window through “position” and “per-period,” but does not explain the required symbol, start_ns, end_ns, or the asset_class enum.

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 identifies the resource as per-period financing cost annualised and accumulated, which maps well to a funding APR calculation. It is more specific than a tautology, but it does not distinguish this from siblings such as funding-predict, perp-basis, or basis.

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 or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites, data availability, or the presence of related funding/basis tools in the sibling set.

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