account_get_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Получение' means 'getting'), but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output contains. For a tool with three parameters and an output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic purpose.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details given the lack of annotations and parameter documentation.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, 2 required), no annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema helps offset some completeness needs, but the description lacks details on usage context, parameter meanings, and behavioral traits, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, leaving all three (start_time, end_time, limit) undocumented. However, with an output schema present, some context is inferred, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, resulting in minimal added value.

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 purpose as 'Получение истории по сделкам аккаунта' (Getting account trade history), which clearly indicates a read operation for trade data. However, it's somewhat vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'account_get_transactions' or 'order_get_list', leaving ambiguity about what specific trade data it returns versus those alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'account_get_transactions' and 'order_get_list' that might overlap in functionality, the description offers no context about differences, prerequisites, or appropriate use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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