历史资金费率

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a historical record of funding rates, but it does not disclose behaviors such as ordering, time range, what happens when no symbol is provided, or whether the rate is the latest vs. per-interval. 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 one clean, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the exact action and resource without any redundant explanation, so it earns its place.

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?

While the tool is simple and has annotations protecting safety, the description does not clarify any alternative use case versus siblings, the meaning of `limit` in plain terms, or the expected behavior when `symbol` is omitted. For a two-parameter read-only tool, this is minimally acceptable but leaves some gaps an agent would have to infer from the schema.

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 for parameter meaning. It partially clarifies that 'symbol' refers to a trading pair via '指定交易对', but it says nothing about `limit` other than what the schema fields already provide (default, min, max). The description does not explain the meaning of the records returned or how the limit affects them.

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 ('获取' / get) and resource ('指定交易对的历史资金费率记录' / historical funding rate records for a specified trading pair). Using '历史' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling `market_funding_rate`, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like `market_funding_rate` or `market_mark_price`. The only implicit signal is the word '历史' (historical), which the agent must infer means this tool is for past data rather than current funding rate.

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