Transaction / trade history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining what each type contains and that the date range defaults to the last 30 days. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core concept ('Historical transaction log') and then efficiently enumerate the type variants and the default time window. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema property names.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries responsibility for explaining what the tool returns, and it does a good job by describing the categories of records. It does not specify the response shape or ordering, and it leaves accountKey/wholeClient behavior to the schema, but for a read-only list tool the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 83%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description meaningfully enriches the 'type' parameter by spelling out the three enum values and giving concrete examples like deposits, withdrawals, dividends, fees, and settlements. It also clarifies the default date behavior, which the schema does not state.

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 resource as a historical transaction log and enumerates the three distinct transaction types (trades, bookings, order_activities), which gives the agent a concrete sense of what this tool returns. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists' and does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_account_history, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when to use the tool by defining each type and stating that trades is the default, and it communicates the default 30-day window. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus get_account_history or get_orders, so the guidance is serviceable but not explicit.

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