Get my trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds context: the tool only returns closed trades, it's paper trading (virtual funds), and 'not financial advice'. It also explains the incremental fetch pattern using updatedSince, which is a behavioral trait beyond 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?

The description is about 100 words, every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, cursor mechanics, and constraints. No redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior (cursor), constraints (paper trading), and return value explanation. Annotations and full schema coverage supplement nicely, but the description itself is self-sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to use updatedSince ('pass it back as updatedSince on the next call') and describes agentTrace as 'Optional private trace metadata stored in the caller's ledger', which provides context beyond the schema.

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 states the tool returns 'Unified realized-PnL log of CLOSED trades across venues', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_positions (open positions) by emphasizing 'CLOSED trades' and mentions specific trade types (spot fills, futures, prediction markets).

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 advises 'Use it to review performance before deciding the next move' and explains the polling mechanism with asOf/updatedSince. It implicitly differentiates from get_positions and other tools, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_performance.

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