Get Portfolio History

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context about pagination and optional date filtering, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with the main action. The second sentence provides essential alternative guidance, earning its place. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description effectively communicates the return type ('individual trade records'), pagination, and date filters. It lacks details on sorting or defaults, but the schema covers parameters, making it adequately complete for the complexity.

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?

All 4 parameters are fully described in the schema, covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description's mention of 'paginated' and 'optional date filtering' loosely maps to cursor/limit and since/until, but adds little beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and names the resource 'copy-trade history (individual trade records)', clearly distinguishing it from get_pnl_history which covers portfolio value. This makes the purpose exceptionally clear and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use get_pnl_history for portfolio value over time, providing a direct alternative and exclusion. The description also implies when to use this tool (when individual trade records are needed), so usage context is well established.

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