get_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 burden. It discloses the auth profile (public, no credentials needed) and the data cadence/volume (60s sampling, up to 480 points = 8h), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of rate-limit or error behavior, but for a read-only public endpoint this is solid coverage.

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 sentences, zero waste, and correctly front-loaded with the deprecation notice so an agent sees the routing instruction first. Purpose, sibling comparison, and auth note follow in priority order.

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 no annotations, the description must carry the full disclosure load, and it covers purpose, granularity, sample volume, and auth. It omits what a sample record actually contains and any pagination behavior, but there is no output schema to lean on, so this is a minor gap for a simple list endpoint.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds interpretation beyond the schema: the 60s cadence and the 480-point/8-hour equivalence give `limit` a concrete temporal meaning. It does not document format expectations for `market_id`, which the schema already handles.

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: dense per-tick funding premium-index samples for one perpetual market. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the closest sibling by noting it is finer-grained than `fetch_funding_rate_history`, which returns settled hourly rates.

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 is explicit on routing: it is deprecated in favor of `fetch_funding_samples`, and it names the distinction that selects it versus `fetch_funding_rate_history` (per-tick samples vs. settled hourly rates). An agent has no inference left to make.

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