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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'checksummed archive' indicating data integrity, but does not disclose response format, pagination, ordering, rate limits, or any mutation behavior.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and front-loads the core purpose, with the archive trait as a parenthetical. Every word adds value with no fluff, making it appropriately concise.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to explain behavior and return values fully. It gives a high-level overview but omits parameter semantics, default behaviors, and output details, making it insufficient for a 3-parameter tool.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (symbol, start, end). It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving parameter meaning and format ambiguous.

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 identifies the resource as 'Perp funding-rate settlement history' and adds specificity with 'from listing date' and 'checksummed archive'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_funding_spread by focusing on settlement history, but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_funding_spread or get_bars. The context of 'from listing date' provides some scope, but there are no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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