fetch_funding_samples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states public/no credentials, 60s cadence, and max 480 points / 8h, which tells the agent this is a safe public read, but it does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects or rate limits.

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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The key granularity and scope are front-loaded before the alternative-tool comparison.

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 two-parameter public read, it supplies cadence, time window, credential requirement, and alternative tool. The main missing piece is any description of returned sample structure, since no output schema exists, and it does not differentiate from get_funding_samples.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying the limit to 'up to 480 points = 8h' and scoping the market_id to one perpetual market.

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?

Combines a specific verb ('Get') with a precise resource ('dense per-tick funding premium-index samples') and scope ('one perpetual market'). It clearly distinguishes itself from fetch_funding_rate_history by granularity.

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?

Names fetch_funding_rate_history as the settled-hourly alternative and gives the selection condition (finer-grained per-tick samples), plus public/no-credentials context. However, it does not address the similarly named get_funding_samples sibling or state explicit when-not conditions.

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