get_funding_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add genuinely useful auth context ('Public — no credentials needed'), but says nothing about rate limits, pagination behavior, or the shape of returned funding records.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, and the deprecation warning is front-loaded where an agent will read it first. Every sentence earns its place.

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 deprecated, credential-free read tool this covers purpose, replacement, and auth. The only gap is the absence of any note on return format or pagination, which matters slightly since there is no output schema.

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%: `market_id` has a format example and `limit` documents max/default values. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the 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 ('Get the funding-rate history for one perpetual market') with an explicit scope qualifier ('one perpetual market'). It also names the successor tool, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like fetch_funding_rate_history and fetch_funding_samples immediately.

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 very first clause is a deprecation notice routing the agent to `fetch_funding_rate_history`, which is explicit when-not-to-use-this and which alternative to pick. No inference required.

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