get_funding_samples

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

With no annotations, the description correctly notes the tool is public (safe read) and specifies cadence and limit. However, it does not disclose error handling, side effects, or other behavioral details, leaving some 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 description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading key information. Every sentence adds value 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?

While the description is clear and includes sibling comparison, it omits the return value structure or formatting. For a data retrieval tool with no output schema, this gap reduces completeness.

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%, and the description does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves dense per-tick funding samples for one perpetual market, with cadence and point limit specified. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling `get_funding_history`, making purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides a specific alternative (`get_funding_history`) and notes the tool is public with no credentials needed. This gives clear context for when to use it versus the sibling, though it does not cover all exclusions.

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