list_my_trades

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'Read-only' and 'list the caller's trades.' No mention of output ordering, pagination behavior beyond schema, rate limits, or authorization needs. For a list operation, more detail on what to expect would be helpful.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It then provides use-case guidance, exclusions, and a follow-up hint. Could be slightly more structured, but every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 no output schema, the description could explain what fields the returned trades contain or default sorting. It mentions a follow-up tool (get_htlc) but lacks details on output format or behavior when no trades exist. Still, it covers usage context and alternatives well.

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?

Input schema has full description coverage (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Optional status filter narrows the page,' which restates what the schema already says about the status parameter. No additional meaning is provided for page or pageSize beyond schema descriptions.

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 'List the caller's trades (active + historical). Read-only.' It identifies the specific resource (caller's trades) and scope (active+historical). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_open_rfqs and get_htlc.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'when an agent restarted/lost context and must resync in-flight settlements, or showing the user their trade history.' Also gives clear when-not-to-use: 'DO NOT USE WHEN: you need open market demand (use list_open_rfqs) or per-leg HTLC detail for one trade (use get_htlc).' Includes follow-up guidance.

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