Forecast next-period funding rates from a supplied rate history for crypto or equity markets, using a configurable window.
Next-period funding rate forecast from a supplied rate history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rates | Yes | ||
| asset_class | Yes | Which market answers. Required: this tool has an implementation for each of these and no symbol parameter to infer one from. | |
| window_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says it forecasts. It does not state the forecasting method, minimum input length, handling of short histories (the default window_size of 5 implies a fallback), failure modes, or whether asset_class changes behavior beyond selecting an implementation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is also the source of its under-specification.
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 3-parameter computational tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain input requirements (e.g., how many rates, what window_size does, what asset_class changes). It leaves an agent unable to call the tool confidently beyond the bare minimum.
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 33%, so the description should compensate, but it adds nothing about window_size or why asset_class is required. The phrase 'supplied rate history' loosely maps to rates, but the meaning of window_size (fallback window) and the crypto/equity choice are left to the schema, which mostly lacks descriptions.
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 verb (forecast) and resource (next-period funding rate) sourced from a supplied rate history, which is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does. However, it gives no differentiation from siblings like funding-apr, basis, or perp-basis, which also deal with funding/rate concepts.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as funding-apr (which likely computes a current APR) or basis tools. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.