funding-rates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses sorting behavior ('sorted by absolute funding magnitude'), included data (8-hour and annualized rates, open interest, etc.), and that rates are current. It doesn't mention caching or update frequency, but the core behavior is clear.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states what the tool returns and its default sorting; the second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers purpose, data fields, and use cases. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to make informed decisions.

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 100% with each parameter already well-described. The description reinforces the overall context but adds minimal new parameter-specific detail. However, it effectively connects parameters to the tool's purpose (e.g., using direction for filtering).

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 uses a specific verb ('returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('current perpetual funding rates for 200+ assets on Hyperliquid DEX'). It mentions sorting and key data fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover other DeFi metrics or exchanges.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use before entering a perpetual position to factor funding cost/income into strategy ROI, or to scan for high-rate short-bias opportunities in delta-neutral strategies.' This clearly tells the agent when the tool is appropriate.

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