get_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return content (net profit, wins/losses per symbol), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. However it omits any auth/permission requirements, whether it is strictly read-only, and whether results are aggregated or per-trade.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the scope before the payload fields. Efficient, though the colon-list style is slightly telegraphic and leaves the symbol/days_back roles compressed.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description should do more. It covers the headline return fields but leaves parameter behavior, timezone/aggregation semantics, and the read-only nature unexplained.

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 description must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies days_back as 'the last N days' and hints that the result is broken down 'per symbol', but never says whether symbol filters the output or is merely a grouping key, nor what symbol format is expected.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Closed-trade summary') and scopes it to the last N days. The word 'closed' implicitly separates it from open-position siblings like get_positions, but that contrast is never made explicit.

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?

No statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_positions, get_tick, or the other history-adjacent siblings. The 'last N days' phrase hints at a reporting/history use case but gives no exclusions or alternatives.

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