derivatives.funding_rate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the Bybit-primary/Binance-fallback data source behavior, tells the agent to inspect data_source, and preemptively explains that predicted_rate equals funding_rate because neither exchange exposes a forecast field. Success and failure return shapes are also specified.

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 front-loaded with the core action and purpose, then usage routing, then a behavioral quirk, then a compact Args/Returns block. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns on success and failure, how to interpret data_source, how the symbol parameter works, and when a sibling should be used instead. Nothing critical is missing for safe invocation.

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 provides only a raw string type with no description and 0% coverage. The description compensates with concrete examples ('BTC', 'ETH', 'BTCUSDT') and a normalization rule for non-USDT symbols, adding meaning the schema lacks. It stops short of full specification, such as case sensitivity or invalid-symbol behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Description opens with a specific action and object — 'Get perpetual futures funding rate' — and adds the purpose of gauging long/short crowding. It also names the more extensive sibling tool, distinguishing this one as the raw funding-rate lookup.

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?

'Use this when asked about funding rate levels or funding-rate arbitrage/carry trade opportunities' explicitly states when. It then says to use get_funding_apr_matrix instead when APR/breakeven-days are needed and warns that calling both is redundant, a clear when-not and alternative.

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