funding_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only discloses the cost ($0.005 via x402) but does not mention if the tool is read-only, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond being a paid operation.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and succinctly adding cost info. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the use case and cost but lacks details on return format or behavior (e.g., whether data is aggregated per venue or per time bucket). It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for all four parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'across venues' is implied by schema), so the schema already handles param semantics adequately.

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 that the tool provides historical funding rates for a symbol across venues, specifically for backtesting and analysis. This distinct purpose differentiates it from siblings like funding_arb (arbitrage) or funding_screener (screening).

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 indicates usage for backtesting/analysis, implying it is for historical data. However, it does not explicitly exclude real-time use or provide guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like funding_signal or funding_spread.

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