hydromancer_wallet_fundingRetrieve hour-by-hour funding paid or received by a wallet's open positions, with per-coin totals and a default 7-day window.
Funding paid or received by a wallet's open positions, hour by hour, with totals per coin. Positive = received, negative = paid. Default window: last 7 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Default "7d". | |
| until | No | ||
| address | Yes | Wallet address, 0x followed by 40 hex characters. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this is a safe, open-world read. Beyond that, the description discloses the sign convention ('Positive = received, negative = paid') and the aggregation granularity ('hour by hour, with totals per coin') — genuinely non-obvious behavioral facts an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling the tool. It does not cover the unit of the amounts (USD notional vs token quantity) or pagination/limits, keeping it out of the top band.
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?
Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the caveats. Slight redundancy in restating the 7-day default that the schema already encodes as "7d", but nothing is padded.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return format, and it does partly (hourly buckets, per-coin totals, sign convention). It omits the timezone/format of the hourly timestamps and the units of the funding amounts, which an agent needs to present results 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?
Schema coverage is 67% — the address pattern and since's default are already documented in the schema. The description adds the effective default window in human terms, but does not clarify the string-vs-number duality of since/until (e.g., '7d' vs a unix timestamp) or what until defaults to, which is the single biggest ambiguity in the schema.
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?
States a concrete resource and shape: funding paid/received by a wallet's open positions, bucketed hourly with per-coin totals. That is far more specific than the title. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling hydromancer_funding_history (market-wide funding history), leaving the agent to infer the wallet-scoped vs market-scoped split from the name alone.
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?
'Default window: last 7 days' gives the agent a usable default, which is real guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and no pointer to an alternative tool for the closely related market-level funding series or for per-position detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.