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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the $0.001 USDC per-call cost and the byte-identical equivalence to a REST endpoint. This gives the agent practical operational knowledge not present in the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the data content is front-loaded, followed by cost, then REST equivalence. Every sentence adds operational value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 a rich output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, and endpoint equivalence. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this simple read-only tool 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%, so the schema fully documents both coin and hours parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond referring to a look-back point, which is already captured by the hours parameter description. Baseline 3 applies.

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 every Hyperliquid funding print for a perp coin, including rate, premium component, and settlement timestamp. It names the exact exchange, asset type, and data fields, distinguishing it from other funding-related sibling tools like market_okx_funding_rate and market_deribit_funding_window.

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 makes it clear this is the Hyperliquid-specific funding history tool, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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