get_funding_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states only the basic read operation without disclosing any side effects, rate limits, pagination, or data freshness. The output schema likely covers return structure, but behavioral aspects are absent.

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, consisting of two sentences. Every word adds value: the purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter is detailed in an args section. No unnecessary text.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return value details are covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks information on time ranges, default behavior, or any prerequisites. It is adequate but minimal.

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 single parameter 'market' is described with a minimal example ('BTC_USDT'). While schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds an example, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the format or constraints beyond a brief mention.

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 is specific: 'Get funding rate history for a futures market.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'funding rate history' are clear. Among sibling tools, none duplicate this purpose, ensuring easy distinction.

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 implies usage is for futures markets, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. No alternatives are mentioned. The statement 'for a futures market' gives some context but lacks completeness.

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