get_hip4_order_history

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds value by detailing the return content (placements, fills, cancellations, modifications) and clarifying coin format acceptance. It also notes user attribution behavior and tier requirement, going beyond the structured 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 two sentences, directly stating the core functionality and coin format. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the key action.

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 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return types. It explains the coin format and tier requirement. However, it lacks details about pagination or how the user field relates to attribution, leaving minor gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description's mention of coin forms and event types adds some context but largely overlaps with parameter descriptions. No new parameter semantics are introduced beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a 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 clearly states the tool retrieves HIP-4 order lifecycle events with user attribution for a specific coin, listing the event types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_order_history or get_hip3_order_history, leaving the agent to infer the HIP-4 specificity and Pro+ tier requirement.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_order_history or get_hip3_order_history. The description mentions 'Pro+ tier' which implies a usage constraint but does not help an agent choose between similar tools.

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