get_trades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses the broker-dependent lookback window ('most recent window each broker exposes'), ordering ('newest first'), and all-account scope. It does not describe response shape or pagination, but these are less critical for a read-only history query.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the core purpose, then appends temporal scope, filters, and ordering. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation facts: what is returned, scope, temporal limitation, filters, and sort order. It could mention trade record fields, but the absence is not a blocker for selecting and calling the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, broker, and symbol. The description adds only 'and/or' filter flexibility and 'newest first' ordering, which is minimal extra value over the 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 names the resource ('trade history'), scope ('across all accounts'), and key characteristics ('most recent window each broker exposes', 'newest first'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_positions (positions vs history) and list_brokers/list_accounts (metadata vs transactions).

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?

It gives useful usage context: the tool is for recent historical trades across all accounts, with optional broker and symbol filters. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope and filters make when to call it reasonably clear.

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