Historical Funding

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: points are ordered oldest to newest, limit is capped at 500, positive values mean longs paid shorts, and unknown/delisted tickers raise an MCP error. No annotations are contradicted.

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 dense but every sentence adds information: semantics, scale formula, default, ordering, sign convention, error handling, and a call example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses the remaining sentences efficiently.

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 output schema exists, return values do not need to be described. The description covers the input format, defaults, error behavior, sign convention, ordering, and relationship to sibling tools, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional lookups.

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 parameter coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries the burden. It explains the ticker format with a concrete example ('ETH-USD'), states the default limit of 168, and caps it at 500. Both parameters are meaningfully documented in prose.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Raw 1h funding rate history of a market'. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling market_detail by clarifying it is the realized rate, not the next-rate preview. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from nearby tools.

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 gives explicit usage context: it is for realized hourly funding history, not the market_detail preview, and it directs users to call list_markets for valid tickers. It also explains ordering convention, default window, and limit cap, so an agent knows when and how to use the tool correctly.

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