get_funding_rate

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It does this by stating the tool returns both current and predicted funding rates, requires a perpetual symbol, and returns a structured error if the exchange does not support funding rates. This goes beyond a simple 'get' and provides useful behavioral expectations, though it stops short of discussing authentication or rate limits.

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 concise, with three short sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the example symbol format is integrated efficiently. No fluff or redundant information.

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 output schema exists, the return format is covered. The description adds key context about symbol requirements and error behavior. However, it does not clarify the behavior of the exchange parameter, nor what 'predicted' funding rate implies. For a tool with only two parameters and an output schema, this is adequately complete but has minor gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful guidance for the 'symbol' parameter with an explicit perpetual format example (BTC/USDT:USDT), but the 'exchange' parameter is not explained. Since the exchange parameter is optional and nullable, the lack of documentation leaves some ambiguity. Overall, partial but not comprehensive compensation.

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 funding rates for perpetual futures, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on funding rates and providing a symbol format example. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (perpetual futures) and even warns that the symbol should be a perpetual. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, the context is specific enough to guide correct usage. It could be improved by saying 'for spot, use get_ticker' but is still strong.

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