hl_funding_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the data content ('historical funding rates') and does not mention safety, pagination, time-range semantics, or any other operational characteristics. It is not misleading but is very thin.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core purpose and a key distinguishing attribute. It is concise, but its brevity leaves out important contextual and parameter information, though that is captured under other dimensions.

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 annotations, 0% schema coverage, and only a one-line description, the tool definition lacks essential context for an agent to correctly invoke it. The presence of an output schema is helpful but does not compensate for missing parameter explanations and behavioral details. The description covers the basic 'what' but not the 'how' or 'when'.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for the parameters 'coin', 'start_time_ms', or 'end_time_ms'. It only mentions 'perp coin' implicitly but does not clarify time semantics or the meaning of end_time_ms (default null). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'Historical funding rates for a perp coin' and adds 'not user-specific' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hl_user_funding_history. While the verb is implicit, the resource and scope are specific and 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 phrase 'not user-specific' implies this tool is for market-wide funding rates rather than user-specific ones, providing some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use guidance beyond that single distinction.

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