Retrieve on-chain DEX trade history for any token using its reference. Specify limit and offset to paginate through swap records.
Get trade history for a token on the on-chain DEX
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | Token reference (txid_vout format) | |
| limit | No | Max results | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not confirm side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or that it only covers DEX swaps. It lacks any behavioral detail beyond the basic action.
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 that front-loads the core purpose without any filler. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide sufficient context about the return format and the domain. It fails to mention that it returns swap history specifically for DEX trades, how it differs from other token history, or any details about pagination or ordering. This is incomplete for a tool with pagination and a nuanced domain.
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 provides 100% coverage of all three parameters (ref, limit, offset) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantics about these parameters; it simply states the general purpose without explaining how ref, limit, or offset function. Since the schema already handles parameter documentation, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the resource 'trade history for a token on the on-chain DEX', which is specific and distinguishes it from generic token history tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling radiant_get_token_history, which likely covers broader token transfers, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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. It does not mention that it is specifically for DEX swap trades, nor does it reference sibling tools like radiant_get_token_history or radiant_get_swap_orders. The context for choosing this tool is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.