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 source (Binance and Bybit), the row granularity (one per settlement), the lookback limit (730 days), and the distinction from live data. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no data exists for a symbol. The description adds useful behavioral context but not exhaustive.

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 sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling distinction is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, data source, time range, and sibling distinction. It doesn't explain return format or exchange parameter values, but the tool is relatively simple. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly in most cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'any pool coin (e.g. BTCUSDT)' which clarifies the symbol parameter, and 'up to 730 days' which bounds the days parameter. However, it doesn't explain the exchange parameter's possible values or the default behavior of 'all'. The description adds some meaning but leaves gaps.

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 returns settled funding rates, one row per settlement, from Binance and Bybit history, up to 730 days for any pool coin. It also distinguishes itself from get_funding_history, which is the live 10-second archive since July 2026. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope and sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly says this is the backtest series and names the alternative get_funding_history for live 10-second data. This gives an agent clear guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling. It also implies usage for historical/backtest analysis.

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