get_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers no information beyond the basic action. It doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects, making it inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.

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?

While concise with just three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks front-loaded critical information and fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name, making it ineffective despite its brevity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves trading history. It doesn't explain what 'trading history' entails (e.g., transactions, orders, performance), the return format, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'days' parameter clearly documented as 'Number of days to look back' with a default of 7. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get trading history' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'get_history' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the resource ('trading history') but lacks a clear, specific verb beyond 'get' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account_info' or 'get_positions' that also retrieve trading-related data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and fails to reference sibling tools like 'get_account_info' for account details or 'get_positions' for current positions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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