hl_user_funding_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the subject matter. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, the time range semantics, pagination, or any response details. This is a significant gap for a history query.

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 brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is just a fragment without any structure or elaboration, offering minimal value beyond the tool name itself.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description fails to provide essential context about how to call the tool, what the parameters represent, and what the response contains. The output schema covers return values, but the description does not aid in invocation.

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 by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'user', 'start_time_ms', or 'end_time_ms' at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no format, units, or meaning are clarified, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'User funding payments' clearly identifies the tool's resource (user funding payments) and scope (user-specific), distinguishing it from the sibling hl_funding_history which is likely global. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', making it a label rather than a full statement of action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hl_funding_history for global funding data. It also fails to mention any prerequisites or context for invoking it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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