market_pulse_funding_rate

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns funding rate plus mark price and open interest from Hyperliquid, but does not disclose rate limits, freshness, or units; this is acceptable given the strong 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.

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

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by an Args section. There is no filler, repetition, or wasted detail.

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 one required parameter, a read-only annotation set, and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the input format and the returned data categories. It omits minor details such as supported asset discovery or funding-rate period, but these do not block correct 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It defines symbol as a base ticker and gives concrete uppercase examples (BTC, ETH, SOL), fully compensating for the empty schema and telling the agent exactly how to populate the required parameter.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: it gets the current perpetual futures funding rate from Hyperliquid, and explicitly names the additional returned data (mark price, open interest). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as price, candles, and orderbook.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing, but the usage is implied: call this tool when you need current funding-rate data. It does not mention alternatives like market_pulse_basis or market_pulse_supported_assets, so the guidance is only implicit rather than explicit.

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