get_funding_rate_history

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds parameter details but no additional behavioral context like data freshness or pagination behavior, making it adequate but not greater.

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 front-loaded with the one-line purpose and then structured as an Args list. It is concise and every sentence provides value, though the parameter list could be slightly more compact.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters with clear descriptions, and since an output schema exists, the description does not need to cover return values. It is complete for a query tool, though it could mention typical usage constraints like date ranges.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by explaining all five parameters: category (linear/inverse), symbol (e.g., BTCUSDT), startTime, endTime, and limit with max and default values. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Query historical funding rate' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fee_rate or get_tickers, as funding rate history is a unique concept.

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 implies usage for querying historical funding rate but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, such as not using it for current funding rates.

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