get_fillsGet executed fills for the subaccount, including price, size, fee and maker/taker liquidity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| market | No | Market ticker filter, e.g. BTC-USD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, matching description. Description adds data fields but no extra behavioral context like pagination or ordering.
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?
Single sentence, efficient, and front-loaded. Could improve with structured listing of returned fields.
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?
Missing pagination details, ordering, subaccount specification. No output schema. Significant gaps for accurate invocation.
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?
Description does not describe any parameters. Schema has 3 params with only market having a description (33% coverage). No parameter meaning added.
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?
Description clearly states it retrieves executed fills with specific data fields (price, size, fee, liquidity). Distinct from siblings like get_open_orders or get_positions.
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?
Implied usage for subaccount trade history, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Does not differentiate from get_balance, get_pnl, etc.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but there is overlap among the read-heavy account tools: get_balance/get_funding_status/fund virtually duplicate each other, and get_equity/get_portfolio/get_position_risk/get_open_orders/get_positions all converge on equity and open-position data. The detailed descriptions help an agent choose, but several tools have fuzzy boundaries.
The overwhelming majority follow the expected verb_noun convention: get_*, place_*, cancel_*, close_*. Minor deviations such as batch_cancel, get_candles_multi, top_up_gas, and whoami make the pattern not perfectly uniform, but the inconsistency is small.
At 33 tools, the surface is beyond what most agents need and includes several redundant query helpers rather than genuinely distinct operations. A broad exchange can justify a large surface, but get_balance/get_funding_status, get_equity/get_portfolio/get_position_risk, and get_candles/get_candles_multi make the set feel top-heavy.
The core lifecycle is well covered: market discovery, market data, order placement/cancellation, position management, risk, funding transfers, PnL, and account status. Obvious gaps are limited to historical order lookup by order ID, a way to cancel across all markets in one call, and a few optional account-history conveniences.