get_funding_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that the average is over the window, which adds a computation detail, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The read-only nature is implied by the name 'get' but not explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by a usage note. No superfluous phrasing or repetition.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return value (history plus average). It lacks specifics about the response shape (e.g., array of {time, rate}) but is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description provides an example (BTC) and ties the average to the window, but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 identifies the tool as returning recent funding-rate history for a Hyperliquid perp, with an example coin and the average over the window. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_all_mids, get_order_book, and get_user_state, which serve different market-data purposes.

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?

It explicitly states usefulness for carry/basis and funding-trend analysis, giving users a clear context for when to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or describe when not to use it, so it stops short of the highest score.

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