get_funding_payments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses authentication requirements, newest-first ordering, optional market filtering, and deprecation. However, it does not describe pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, response format, or error handling, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

The deprecation notice is front-loaded, followed by a compact sentence covering authentication, ordering, and filtering. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only history endpoint with a well-described schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: deprecation, replacement, authentication, ordering, and filter scope. It could say more about return fields, but the deprecation reduces the need for exhaustive detail.

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 `limit` and `market_id` are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that filtering is by a single market, which is marginal beyond what the schema provides.

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 authenticated account's funding-payment history'), including scope ('authenticated account'), ordering ('newest first'), and optional filtering. It also names the replacement sibling tool, making it easy to distinguish from other funding-history endpoints.

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?

Explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and directs the agent to `fetch_funding_history` instead, which is the strongest possible usage guidance. It also states that API credentials are required, so the agent knows the preconditions.

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