get_spot_order_history

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

Annotations already confirm read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context: it returns specific event types, user addresses, and notes data is live from a specific date. Minor gap: no mention of pagination behavior or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences with clear front-loading of purpose, then details on symbol format and data availability. No extraneous words.

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?

With eight parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, symbol format, event types, user attribution, and data availability. It does not explain pagination or rate limits, but these are minor omissions given the output schema exists.

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 the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds context on symbol format and event types but these are not parameter-specific. Meets baseline for high schema coverage.

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 spot order lifecycle events with user attribution, specifies symbol format (dashed canonical), lists event types, and mentions Pro+ tier and data availability date. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_order_history (perpetuals) and get_spot_trades.

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 description implies usage for spot order history with user attribution but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., get_order_history for perpetuals, get_spot_trades for trade-only). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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