Get my trades

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral details: it confirms read-only access to closed trades, explains the response includes asOf for polling, notes it is paper trading only with virtual funds, and provides details on execution costs and caveats (e.g., 'a rehearsal cost, not an exchange fill guarantee'). No contradictions.

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 moderately verbose but well-structured. It starts with core purpose, then usage, polling, paper trading context, and execution costs. Each sentence adds value, though the execution cost details could be considered slightly tangential. Overall, it is appropriately sized for 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, polling mechanism, paper trading context, and execution model. No need to explain return values as output schema exists.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by explaining the updatedSince cursor usage: 'Pass the previous response's asOf back here.' For other parameters like limit, venue, and agentTrace, the description does not add beyond the schema, but the single insight about updatedSince justifies a score above baseline (3).

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 it is a 'Unified realized-PnL log of CLOSED trades across venues' and serves as 'the agent's memory of what it did and what won/lost.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_performance or get_agent_ledger, which focus on broader metrics or ledger entries.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to review performance before deciding the next move' and explains how to use the updatedSince parameter for polling. However, it does not mention specific alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the context implies it is for closed trades.

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