get_trade_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions pagination and time filters at a high level but says nothing about return shape, ordering (newest first?), how pagination metadata is surfaced, or rate limits. For a 6-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is a substantial gap.

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 one-line sentence with zero filler. The core capability is front-loaded and there is nothing to remove.

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?

The description names the three things a caller cares about (wallet scope, pagination, time filtering), which covers the primary usage path. But with no annotations, no output schema, and 33% of parameters undocumented, it does not give the agent enough to call the tool confidently or predict the response shape.

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 67%. The description signals that 'page' and 'limit' drive pagination and that 'startTime'/'endTime' are time filters, which adds modest value. But it doesn't clarify units (the schema says Unix timestamps), chain format, or the returned page size. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents most fields.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get historical trades for a wallet') with modifiers (pagination and time filters). It does not differentiate from the sibling get_hl_trade_history, which likely retrieves the same class of data for a different venue, so it falls short of the full 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative get_hl_trade_history. The agent is left to guess which trade-history tool applies. A brief contrast would have earned a much higher score.

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