Derive MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication requirements but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by page/page_size parameters), rate limits, error conditions, what happens with invalid subaccount_id, or the format/structure of returned order history. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second adds authentication requirement. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative given the tool's complexity.

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 a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the pagination behavior (critical for understanding how to retrieve all history), doesn't explain the relationship between currency and instrument_name filters, doesn't mention response format, and provides minimal behavioral context. The authentication mention is helpful but insufficient.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'subaccount' which aligns with subaccount_id, and 'filled, cancelled, and rejected orders' which relates to the tool's purpose but not specific parameters. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'order history for a subaccount', specifying it includes 'filled, cancelled, and rejected orders'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_open_orders (which only shows active orders) and get_trade_history (which shows executed trades). However, it doesn't explicitly mention pagination or filtering capabilities that are evident from the schema.

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 context by stating 'Requires authentication' and specifying it's for 'a subaccount', which helps differentiate from tools like get_account. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like get_open_orders (for active orders) or get_trade_history (for executed trades), nor does it mention prerequisites beyond authentication.

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