get_order_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 for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: if no user is specified, the tool returns the order history of the wallet address. However, it omits details such as authentication requirements, output format, and any potential limitations or side effects, leaving some important aspects unspecified.

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 sentence that conveys both the main action and an important conditional behavior. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, though the sentence structure could be slightly clearer. Overall, it is appropriately sized without unnecessary padding.

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 tool is relatively simple, but the description lacks details about the expected format of the 'user' parameter (e.g., address or username), any pagination or limits, and the structure of the returned order history. Since there is no output schema, these gaps make the description only partially complete for an agent to use confidently.

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 covers the parameter 'user' with a description, but the tool description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining the optionality and default behavior ('if no user is provided, the order history of the wallet address will be returned'). This goes beyond the schema's basic description and clarifies the parameter's role.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all order history') on Hyperliquid. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_order_status and get_open_orders by implying the full historical scope. This is a strong, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 an important usage note about default behavior when no user is provided, which helps with parameter handling. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to use this versus alternatives, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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