get_spot_margin_interest_rate_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name-like purpose without detailing response format, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. A read operation is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 short (two lines) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary language. However, it may be overly terse, sacrificing completeness for brevity. Still, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and many closely related siblings, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output (e.g., list of rates, time range), error handling, or how to interpret results. An agent would likely need external knowledge to use it 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?

The parameter 'currency' is described with an example 'e.g., USDT', adding meaning beyond the schema (which only specifies type string). However, no details on allowed values, format, or case sensitivity. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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 the resource 'spot margin historical interest rate', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from many sibling tools that deal with other spot margin data (e.g., coin state, collateral ratio). However, it lacks additional context that could further clarify the scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_spot_margin_coin_state' or 'get_spot_margin_collateral_ratio'. There is no mention of prerequisites, preferred use cases, or when not to use it. The agent has to infer from the name alone.

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