get_trade_history

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination (via 'ofs'), data freshness, or any limitations. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to add context 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 extremely short (3 words), which is concise but lacks necessary detail for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. It is not front-loaded with key information; it is merely a basic 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?

Given the lack of output schema, 7 parameters, and many sibling trade-related tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or how parameters affect results, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 71%, with 5 of 7 parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it repeats nothing but also enriches nothing. The baseline is 3 given moderate coverage and no extra value.

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 'Return historical fills' clearly states the verb and resource, indicating it retrieves past trade executions. However, it does not distinguish it from siblings like 'get_recent_trades' or 'query_trades', which also deal with trade history.

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 tool versus alternatives such as 'get_recent_trades' or 'query_trades'. No mention of filtering by type, date range, or other criteria that might differentiate it.

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