funding_rate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data origin (Binance USDT futures) and explains the interpretation of positive values (longs pay shorts, bullish bias). It does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, or whether the rate is current or historical, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable. It adds value beyond the schema by explaining the sign convention.

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 concise sentences. The first states the core functionality, the second provides a key interpretation detail. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the what, where, and interpretation. It does not explicitly state the return format (percentage vs. decimal) or whether it is the current rate, but the core usage is clear.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing it as 'Base symbol'. The tool description adds that the symbol pertains to the Binance USDT futures perp context, which clarifies the symbol's domain. It does not add specific format details (e.g., uppercase), but the schema already specifies max length and example symbols.

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 the specific verb 'Get', identifies the resource 'perp funding rate', and names the source 'Binance USDT futures'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_prices or technical_indicators.

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 comparison to alternatives. The context implies it is for funding rate queries, but it does not state when to prefer this over crypto_prices or market_sentiment. The positive/negative explanation adds usage context for interpretation, but no exclusion criteria.

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