Funding Rate Scanner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining how to interpret funding values ('Positive funding means shorts collect, negative means longs collect') and that results are ranked by absolute value. This goes beyond annotations to clarify output meaning, though it does not disclose potential rate limits or pagination behavior.

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 consists of three concise sentences, each adding value: the primary function, the interpretation of funding signs, and a parameter-specific usage tip. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only scanner with rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the data scope, ranking logic, sign interpretation, and a specific use case. The only missing detail is the 'top' parameter, but the schema default and name make this self-explanatory, and the output schema covers return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains hedgeable_only ('Set hedgeable_only=true to only show coins that also have a spot market'), but does not explain the 'top' parameter. However, 'top' is an integer with a default of 10, and its meaning is inferable from the ranking context, so it is partially compensated.

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's purpose: 'Scan funding rates across all Pacifica perp markets, ranked by annualized funding APR (absolute value).' The verb 'scan' and specific resource 'funding rates' provide a precise action and object. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like open_funding_position and close_funding_position by focusing on scanning rather than managing positions.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool by explaining the significance of positive/negative funding and the hedgeable_only parameter. It mentions a specific use case ('required for delta-neutral farming') but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is a minor gap, as the context strongly implies its role as a scanning/analysis tool.

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