get_hip3_funding

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

While annotations already indicate idempotent and read-only behavior, the description adds valuable behavioral context: case-sensitivity, timestamp range defaults, cursor pagination, and aggregation interval options. No contradictions with annotations.

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 pack all essential information: purpose, case-sensitivity, time range, pagination, and intervals. No wasted words; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (1 required) and an output schema exists, the description covers all key aspects: what data is returned, symbol format, time range, pagination, and aggregation. It references a sibling tool for complete symbol list, making it self-contained enough for effective use.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it reiterates case-sensitivity, lists example symbols from various builders, mentions 125+ markets, and suggests using get_hip3_instruments. It also explains default start/end and intervals.

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 it retrieves 'HIP-3 funding rate history' with specific verb (Get) and resource (HIP-3 funding rate history). It distinguishes from siblings like get_funding_history by specifying the HIP-3 market, and mentions case-sensitivity and example symbols, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implicitly provides usage context by mentioning it returns historical data with pagination and intervals, and references the sibling tool get_hip3_instruments for listing symbols. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other funding-related tools (e.g., get_funding_current, get_funding_history) or state when not to use it.

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