get_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the 90-day limit for custom ranges and the cost information ('Costs 2 weight') which indicates resource consumption. This provides practical constraints that aren't captured in the basic 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 extremely concise and well-structured in just three sentences. The first states the purpose, the second provides critical usage constraints, and the third adds cost information. Every sentence earns its place with essential information, and the most important constraints appear immediately after the basic purpose statement.

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 tool with good annotations and comprehensive schema coverage, the description provides excellent additional context about parameter constraints and resource costs. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't explain what format the history data returns. However, given the tool's relative simplicity and the strong parameter guidance, it's mostly complete for its purpose.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context about the mutual exclusivity of parameter groups ('EITHER...OR...not both') and the 90-day limit, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('trade deal history'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account' or 'get_positions', but the specific focus on 'trade deal history' provides reasonable distinction. The description is more specific than a tautology but doesn't fully articulate how this differs from other data retrieval tools.

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 provides excellent usage guidance with explicit constraints: 'Use EITHER a preset period OR a from/to date range, not both' and 'Custom ranges limited to 90 days.' This gives clear direction on parameter combinations and limitations. While it doesn't mention when to choose this tool over siblings like 'get_account', the parameter guidance is comprehensive for this specific tool's usage.

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