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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are bucketed and aggregated, which is genuinely beyond the annotations. It says nothing about how the bucket window aligns, whether the annualized rate is scaled to 8h funding periods, or how limit truncates the series.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and enumerates outputs after. No filler and nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the schema fully documents the three parameters. What remains missing is domain context an agent would want before relying on results, such as the funding interval basis for the annualized figure; the definition is otherwise sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 100%, with per-parameter text covering market formats, the interval enum, and the limit default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase 'per time bucket' loosely maps to interval but adds no syntax or default beyond what is already documented.

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?

States a specific resource (funding statistics for a Hyperliquid perp) plus the exact aggregation set returned: average, minimum, maximum, annualized rate. That is far more precise than the title. It stops short of naming sibling get_funding_rates, so the raw-vs-aggregated distinction must be inferred from the field list.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'per time bucket' and the aggregation wording suggest this is the summary counterpart to get_funding_rates, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. An agent must infer the routing from sibling names alone.

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