derivatives.funding_rate_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that it shares the same cache and triggers no new upstream call (a cost/latency trait), and it documents both success and failure return shapes. It stops short of mentioning auth or rate-limit behavior, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Front-loads the core distinction (cheap wrapper, trimmed response) in the first sentence and keeps the rest tight. The Returns block is slightly verbose but is justified because no output schema exists.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternative routing, parameter normalization, and both success/failure response shapes. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining accepted forms ('BTC', 'ETH', 'BTCUSDT') and the non-USDT normalization rule. That adds real meaning beyond the bare 'symbol' string type.

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+resource ('thin wrapper around derivatives.funding_rate') and explicitly narrows the scope to just the funding rate numbers. It directly distinguishes itself from the sibling derivatives.funding_rate by what it omits (mark/index price, open_interest_usd).

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use this instead of get_funding_rate when all you need is the raw funding rate value/percentage.' It names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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