get_spread_trade_history

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions optional symbol filtering and a default record limit, omitting details like pagination, ordering, time range, or whether only executed trades are returned.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a one-line purpose followed by bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough for basic understanding but lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, or any rate limits. Given the low complexity, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description adds basic meaning: 'Filter by symbol (optional)' and 'Number of records (default: 50)'. This goes beyond the schema titles but is minimal, not providing format or constraints.

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 retrieves spread trading execution history, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource 'spread trading execution history'. This distinguishes it from other history tools among siblings like get_trade_history or get_spread_order_history.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling history tools, the user is left to infer context. The description does not mention when-not to use or provide alternative tools.

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