getHistoricalInterestRate

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds substantial context: authentication permission, hourly rate granularity, required currency, vipLevel fallback behavior, time window constraints, default window, six-month retention, and URL encoding note. No contradiction 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?

The description is front-loaded and organized, but it is redundant: the bullet list and Agent hint repeat the same requirements (Spot permission, startTime/endTime pairing, default 7 days). Condensing these sections would make it more concise without losing information.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema and no property-level schema descriptions, the description covers most invocation context: required permission, required parameter, constraints, defaults, data retention, and an encoding edge case. Minor gaps remain around the expected timestamp unit and response structure, but the tool is callable with the information provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that currency is required, vipLevel defaults to the account's current VIP level, startTime/endTime must be paired with a 30-day max span, and omission defaults to 7 days. It does not specify the timestamp format/units, but otherwise provides strong parameter-level guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Query') and a specific resource ('historical borrowing interest rate data for UTA spot margin'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like getBorrowHistory or getFundingRateHistory by narrowing scope to UTA spot margin interest rates.

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 provides clear context: Spot permission is required, startTime/endTime must be used together, default behavior when omitted, and data availability limits. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for exclusion, but the usage context is clear enough.

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