get_funding_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely says 'Get funding history' and describes parameters, but gives no information about rate limits, response format, potential errors, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by the verb 'Get' but not explicitly stated.

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 the purpose stated in one sentence and parameters listed cleanly. No unnecessary words or filler; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. It lacks guidance on when to use this versus other data tools, but for a straightforward data retrieval, the provided information is largely sufficient.

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?

The schema has no descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining that 'coin' is a trading pair with examples and 'days' is the look-back period with a default value. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw type/default information in the schema.

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 action ('Get funding history') and the resource (a coin), with parameter details. It is distinct from siblings like get_market_data and get_trade_history by its focus on funding history, but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternative tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to siblings like get_market_data or get_candles_snapshot. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints about appropriate use cases.

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