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

Annotations already declare a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: data is scoped to the current API-key user, token_address is required with no cross-token mode, and include_fills=false skips fill legs. It also explains that rationale is null when absent and that empty closed positions do not imply no holdings.

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 key scope and sibling distinction are front-loaded and most sentences carry useful operational guidance. It is somewhat long and has a slight tension between 'one entry per closed buy→sell cycle' and later 'one entry per fill', which could be tightened.

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?

For this read-only history tool, the description covers scope, user isolation, required token constraint, sibling alternatives, fill inclusion behavior, and important empty-result caveats. With an output schema present, return-value detail need not be repeated.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description must carry semantics; it does so well for the required token_address and for include_fills. It does not explain page, limit, or network beyond the schema titles/defaults, so it is strong but not fully compensatory.

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?

States a specific retrieval purpose: the current user's completed trades, newest first, with the cycle/fill structure and realised result. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_my_closed_positions by contrasting trade-level vs position-level history.

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?

Gives explicit usage guidance: use positions for 'how did I do on X' and trades for 'show me every trade', and use get_my_balances for still-held positions. It also states the required one-token-at-a-time constraint and that asking about another wallet is impossible.

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