Aster Finance MCP Server

fundingRate

Retrieve historical funding rate data for cryptocurrency futures trading on Aster Finance to analyze market trends and inform trading strategies.

Instructions

Get funding rate history.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "fundingRate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`endTime`	No	End time in ms
`limit`	No	Number of results. Default 100, max 1000.
`startTime`	No	Start time in ms
`symbol`	No	Trading symbol

Implementation Reference

src/index.ts:605-606 (handler)
The handler logic for the 'fundingRate' tool within the CallToolRequestSchema switch statement. It calls the shared makeRequest function with GET method to the '/fapi/v1/fundingRate' endpoint, passing the tool arguments.
```
case 'fundingRate':
  return makeRequest('GET', '/fapi/v1/fundingRate', args);
```

src/index.ts:165-173 (schema)

Input schema definition for the 'fundingRate' tool, specifying the expected parameters and their types/descriptions.

inputSchema: {
  type: 'object',
  properties: {
    symbol: { type: 'string', description: 'Trading symbol' },
    startTime: { type: 'number', description: 'Start time in ms' },
    endTime: { type: 'number', description: 'End time in ms' },
    limit: { type: 'number', description: 'Number of results. Default 100, max 1000.' },
  },
},

src/index.ts:162-174 (registration)

Registration of the 'fundingRate' tool in the ListToolsRequestSchema response's tools array, including name, description, and input schema.

{
  name: 'fundingRate',
  description: 'Get funding rate history.',
  inputSchema: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {
      symbol: { type: 'string', description: 'Trading symbol' },
      startTime: { type: 'number', description: 'Start time in ms' },
      endTime: { type: 'number', description: 'End time in ms' },
      limit: { type: 'number', description: 'Number of results. Default 100, max 1000.' },
    },
  },
},

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 22, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't mention critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the format/structure of the returned history. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a financial data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the funding rate history includes (e.g., timestamps, rates), how results are ordered, or any behavioral traits like pagination or default time ranges. This leaves the agent under-informed for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (endTime, limit, startTime, symbol) with units and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get funding rate history' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('funding rate history'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from many siblings like 'fundingInfo' (which might provide current rates) by specifying 'history', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fundingInfo' or other market data tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or any 'when-not-to-use' scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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