get_trade_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' and 'executed trades' imply a read-only historical query, and it discloses the record contents (price, size, side, timestamp) plus the pagination model — useful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, data freshness/delay, rate limits, or what happens when both optional filters are omitted.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a single detail sentence and an Args list. The structure is efficient and scannable, with only minor redundancy between the Args block and the schema properties.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed, and all four parameters are covered. The gaps are the usage/routing guidance against similar siblings and the unspecified behavior when no filters are supplied — both of which matter for an agent choosing among many trade-related tools.

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 0%, so the schema supplies only types and null defaults. The Args block compensates well: it identifies user as a wallet address, market as a market condition ID, and limit/offset as pagination controls. This is meaningful meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't state defaults or valid ranges for limit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the historical log of executed trades,' and states the scoping dimension (specific user or market). It clearly distinguishes itself from price-oriented siblings like get_price_history, but it never explicitly names or contrasts the closest alternatives such as get_market_trades_events or get_activity.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. With siblings like get_market_trades_events, get_activity, and get_positions in the same namespace, an agent is left to guess which tool yields an executed-trade log versus trade events or account activity.

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