Use this when the user asks for closed trade history of a specific trader.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| limit | No | Results per page | |
| source | No | Exchange | binance |
| traderId | Yes | The trader ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Closed positions, most recently closed first | |
| pagination | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering most safety-relevant behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 'closed' trade history distinction, so it does not significantly enhance transparency beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It states the exact trigger and scope efficiently, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand applicability.
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 comprehensive input schema with 100% description coverage, output schema, and safety annotations, the single-sentence description is largely sufficient for a straightforward read-only paginated endpoint. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or ordering, but these are adequately covered by the structured schema data.
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?
All four parameters are fully described in the input schema, including the meaning of traderId, page, limit, and source exchange. The description itself adds no parameter-level details, so the schema carries the full burden; the high schema coverage supports the baseline score.
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 explicitly states the tool is for retrieving closed trade history for a specific trader, providing a clear resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_positions (open positions) and get_trader_profile, though it does not name them explicitly.
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 phrase 'Use this when...' gives clear contextual guidance for when to invoke the tool (closed trade history of a specific trader). It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is specific enough to discourage misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.