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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it fetches data; it does not mention ordering, pagination behavior, response format, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. For a read operation, this is a minimal but not entirely absent disclosure, yet it lacks context that would help an agent anticipate results.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key capabilities. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It does not explain the return structure, defaults, or how filters interact. However, the schema covers parameter details, and the tool is a straightforward fetch, so the description is not severely incomplete. It is missing some context but is not misleading.

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 already provides descriptions for all 8 parameters, with 100% coverage. The description only lists the filter categories (market, condition, token, time, user) without adding new meaning. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it, as no extra context about parameter combinations or formats is given.

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 tool fetches historical trade data, a specific action, and lists the main filter dimensions (market, condition, token, time range, user wallet). It is clear and uses a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling dome_trade_history, so it loses a point.

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 versus alternatives like dome_trade_history or dome_orderbook_history_get. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites. The optional filtering implies a search use case, but that is not explicit enough to guide selection among siblings.

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