fetch_funding_rate_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: no credentials are required. It is silent on rate limits, pagination/ordering of the history, and whether the series is bounded or continuous, so the disclosure is partial.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the auth caveat immediately after. Nothing here can be cut without losing information.

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?

For a simple public read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, subject scope, and auth requirements, which is close to sufficient. The one omission that matters is disambiguation from the many similarly named funding-history siblings.

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% (both limit and market_id are documented in-schema, including the max-1000/default-300 behavior), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'one market at a time' scoping constraint, which is meaningful but already implied by the required market_id.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get the funding-rate history') and scopes it to 'one perpetual market', so the operation is unambiguous. It fails to differentiate from near-identically named siblings such as fetch_funding_history, get_funding_history, fetch_funding_samples and get_funding_samples, which is a real gap given the crowded namespace.

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 states the access condition ('Public — no credentials needed'), which tells the agent this can be called without auth. However, it never says when to prefer this over fetch_funding_history, get_funding_history, or fetch_funding_samples, leaving the agent to guess among several plausible alternatives.

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