get_asset_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 of behavioral disclosure. The four-word description fails to mention traits like pagination, authentication requirements, data freshness, or scope (all assets or specific). This is a critical gap for a data retrieval tool.

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 extremely concise at 4 words, with no superfluous information. Every word earns its place, and the structure is a clear verb-noun phrase. This achieves maximum efficiency.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns. It does not, leaving the agent uninformed about the response format, scope, or limitations. For a data retrieval tool, this is incomplete.

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?

The input schema has zero properties, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The rule gives a baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'asset transaction history', which is sufficient given no parameters need explanation.

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 'Get asset transaction history' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'asset transaction history'. Among sibling tools like 'get_algo_orders' or 'get_funding_fee_history', this tool is uniquely identified as retrieving the transaction history for assets, making its purpose distinct 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'get_funding_fee_history', 'get_internal_transfer_history', and 'get_pnl_settlement_history', which might be more specific. Without context, an agent might struggle to choose appropriately.

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