get_funding_rate

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

The description explains the funding rate concept and notes that return fields vary by exchange, adding some transparency. However, without annotations, it fails to disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects (though the tool is clearly read-only). The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a brief summary, explanatory context, and explicit Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though the funding rate explanation could be slightly condensed. Overall efficient and clear.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists return fields and notes variability. The two required parameters are fully described with examples. The tool is relatively simple, and the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation, though missing potential error handling or usage constraints.

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 description compensates for the schema's 0% coverage by providing concrete examples for exchange_id ('binance', 'okx', 'bybit', 'bitmex') and symbol ('BTC/USDT:USDT', 'BTC/USD:BTC'), adding meaning beyond the bare string type. This guides the agent effectively on parameter values.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource phrase 'Get the current funding rate for a perpetual-futures contract on a specific exchange,' which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_funding_rate_history (historical) and compare_funding_rates (comparison). The context about funding rate further clarifies the tool's domain.

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 usage for current rate but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like get_funding_rate_history for historical data or compare_funding_rates for cross-exchange comparison. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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