get_funding_rate_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses varying funding intervals, timestamp behavior, default window, limit clamping, return format (oldest-first), and error handling on unsupported exchanges. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, but it is slightly verbose with extensive examples in the exchange_id parameter list. Every sentence adds value, but a bit more conciseness could improve it.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is comprehensive: covers usage context, parameter details, return fields, cadence caveats, and error responses. No significant gaps remain.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully: it lists specific exchange IDs, explains symbol format with settle suffix examples, describes `since_ms` as optional unix-millis lower bound with default behavior, and notes `limit` clamping to [1,1000] with default 100.

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 it retrieves historical funding-rate time-series for a perpetual contract on one exchange. It distinguishes itself from siblings `get_funding_rate` (single snapshot) and `compare_funding_rates` (cross-exchange current rate), providing specific verb and resource.

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 explicitly specifies when to use (trend analysis, spotting cycles, quant signal) and when not (use `get_funding_rate` for single snapshot, use `compare_funding_rates` for cross-exchange current rate). It also warns about varying funding intervals by venue, offering clear guidance on when to avoid this tool.

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