Trade history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses the broker-specific recency window, newest-first ordering, the output shape, and the critical refusal behavior for mixed-account histories. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 three dense sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose and ordering, then gives the integration workflow, then the critical warning. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly: what it returns, how results are ordered, available filters, how to use the result downstream, and a key constraint. The schema covers parameter limits, so no critical information is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that broker/symbol filters are optional and, more importantly, by explaining the broker-filtering requirement when multiple accounts are connected. This goes beyond the schema's simple parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as returning executed trades across all connected accounts, with an explicit ordering ('newest first') and optional filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like broker_positions, broker_stats, and broker_accounts.

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 gives strong usage context: it explains how to feed the result into propfirms_simulate_trades and warns to filter to one broker/account first because mixed-account histories are refused. It does not explicitly name alternatives like broker_positions, but the workflow and constraints are clear.

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