get_pre_upgrade_trade_history

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states it's a 'get' operation, implying read-only. It does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if no history exists, which is critical for a history retrieval tool.

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 very concise, consisting of one line plus a short argument list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes only necessary parameter details, though the structure could be more readable with formatting.

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 does not explain the return format or fields in the execution list. It also lacks context on how pre-upgrade data is defined or how pagination works beyond limit. For a complex tool, this is insufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics: it lists allowed values for category (linear, inverse, option, spot), notes symbol is optional, and specifies default and max for limit (50, 100). This goes beyond the raw schema.

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 explicitly states 'Get pre-upgrade trade history (execution list)', using a specific verb and resource. The term 'pre-upgrade' distinguishes it from current trade history tools like get_trade_history, and it is clear among siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_trade_history or get_pre_upgrade_order_history. No context on prerequisites or typical scenarios is given.

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