edgex_get_funding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable context: the sign interpretation (positive = longs pay shorts) and the cache-based behavior when symbol is omitted. However, it does not describe the return format or potential errors.

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 three short sentences, each providing distinct information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and does not waste words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, sign convention, and cache behavior. It omits return structure details but is largely adequate for a straightforward getter.

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?

The schema provides a description for the optional symbol parameter, and the tool description attempts to add cache behavior details. However, the phrase 'Omit symbol for first N contracts from cache' appears to contradict the schema's 'Omit for all,' leading to confusion about the default behavior. This undermines reliable parameter usage.

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 retrieves current and predicted funding rates, with a specific sign convention. This distinguishes it from other get_* tools like get_ticker or get_ratio. The cache behavior adds further specificity.

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 implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like edgex_get_ratio or edgex_get_summary. The note about omitting the symbol for cached results offers a usage hint, but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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