get_trade_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral details. It doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or response format. While 'Get' implies read-only, the lack of annotations means critical operational context is missing.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies 'personal' and 'fills', which adds useful context, though more behavioral details would improve completeness for a financial 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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'symbol' and 'limit'. Baseline is 3 since the schema fully documents parameters, but the description doesn't enhance understanding with examples 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 action ('Get') and resource ('personal trade execution history for a symbol'), specifying it retrieves fills rather than orders. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_order_history' or 'get_recent_trades', which could cause confusion about scope.

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 like 'get_order_history' or 'get_recent_trades'. The description mentions 'personal' and 'fills', but doesn't clarify exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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