get-trade-history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses that only filled/executed trades are returned (vs open orders) and lists what data fields (price, quantity, fees) are included, which is useful. But it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limiting, pagination behavior, or time-range defaults beyond what the schema already implies.

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?

Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler. Slightly could be tightened but earns its place.

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 read-only query tool with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core (what it returns) but omits auth requirements, pagination limits, and how it differs operationally from sibling order-query tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema fully documents all 5 parameters (limit defaults/max, fromId, symbol format, start/end time). The description adds the framing that results are filled trades filtered presumably by the time/ID params, but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (account trade list) and names the domain (Binance USDⓈ-M Futures). It distinguishes itself from get-all-orders and query-order by specifying executed/filled trades, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 on when to use this versus query-order, get-all-orders, or get-open-orders. The parenthetical '(executed trades)' hints at filled-only scope but does not explicitly state the condition or exclusions, and no prerequisites (auth, symbol validity, rate limits) are mentioned.

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