trade_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering (most recent first) and the included data (win/loss and profit), which are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention the limit parameter or any pagination behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently captures the core functionality.

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 simple tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and return content. However, it lacks any mention of the 'limit' parameter's effect on the result count, and does not explain the exact structure or interpretation of 'win/loss' beyond the words themselves.

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 only parameter, 'limit', has no description in the schema and the description does not mention it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for this gap, leaving the parameter's purpose undocumented.

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 returns recent closed trades, sorted most recent first, and includes win/loss and profit. This is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like open_positions, which handles open trades.

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 implies usage for viewing closed trade history but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_positions or performance. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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