fetch_funding_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement and that results are returned newest first, but says nothing about pagination/cursor behavior, rate limits, or what a record contains. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, that is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; scope and ordering come first and the credential note closes it out. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 does enough for a simple filtered read: it names the resource, the scope, the ordering, and the auth prerequisite. Missing only pagination/return-shape detail, a minor gap for a two-parameter list tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented (limit cap of 1000, market_id example format). The description only restates the optional market filter and adds the 'newest first' ordering hint, adding little beyond the structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource with scope: 'the authenticated account's funding-payment history', plus ordering and an optional market filter. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings get_funding_history and get_funding_payments, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

It gives the selection context ('authenticated account's', 'optionally filtered to a single market') and a prerequisite ('Requires API credentials'), which implies when it applies. However, it never names or excludes its obvious alternatives (get_funding_history, get_funding_payments, fetch_funding_samples), leaving the agent to guess which funding tool to call.

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