get_funding_history

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

No annotations provided, so description alone must disclose behavior. It reveals public access (no credentials), which is helpful. But it omits other traits like read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or whether results are sorted. Minimal beyond auth context.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first states action, second clarifies access. No redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 and many sibling tools, description lacks details on return structure (e.g., fields, sorting). However, for a simple list tool, the basic purpose is clear. Adequate but could be more complete given complexity of 2 parameters and 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (market_id with example, limit with definition). Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already sufficiently documents parameters.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the funding-rate history for one perpetual market' with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'funding-rate history'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_funding_payments' and 'get_funding_samples' by focusing on history.

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?

Description notes 'Public — no credentials needed', which clarifies access context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative funding tools (e.g., when to use this vs get_funding_payments) or state prerequisites beyond market_id.

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