get_order_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the operation type (read) and parameter limits (max 50 records), but does not address rate limits, authentication, or pagination beyond the limit. It is minimally adequate.

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 efficient: a one-line purpose, then clear parameter docs, and a return line. No redundant text; every sentence adds value. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core function.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs and high-level return (list of orders). However, it does not describe the structure of returned orders (e.g., fields like orderId, price) or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, but the description explains each parameter: symbol ('e.g., BTCUSDT'), category ('spot, linear, inverse'), and limit ('default 50, max 50'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default values, though it could include more examples for category.

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 'Get historical (closed/cancelled/filled) orders,' specifying both the verb and the resource with precise statuses. It distinguishes from siblings like get_open_orders (open orders) and get_trade_history (trades vs orders), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving past, non-open orders, which is clear from the statuses listed. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_open_closed_orders or mention when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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