Derive MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirements (helpful) but lacks critical details like pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a read operation with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or fluff.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers authentication but misses pagination behavior, return format, error handling, and usage context relative to siblings. For a financial data retrieval tool, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between filters or how timestamps interact). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('funding payments history') with scope ('paid and received'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_funding_rate_history', but the focus on payments vs. rates is implied.

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 mentions 'Requires authentication' as a prerequisite but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_deposit_history' or 'get_withdrawal_history'. No explicit when/when-not rules or sibling comparisons are included.

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