Track position changes over time by retrieving bounded signed position history filtered by symbol, time range, and result limit. Use it to audit past trading activity.
Read bounded signed position history with optional time and symbol filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| symbol | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal extra behavioral context. It mentions 'bounded' which hints at limit-driven pagination and 'signed' (long/short), but does not describe return format, ordering, or any side effects. This is adequate given the annotations cover safety, but it is not rich beyond them.
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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes all essential scoping (bounded, signed, filters) without verbosity. It is appropriately concise for a simple read tool, though it could expand slightly without losing efficiency.
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 4 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of 'signed', the relationship between from/to and pagination, or what the return value contains. The agent would need to infer or probe further to use it correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names 'time and symbol filters' and 'bounded', but does not explicitly map to specific parameters (from, to, symbol, limit) or explain their types and semantics (e.g., whether from/to are timestamps, what 'signed' means for the data). This leaves the agent guessing about parameter meaning.
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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('position history'), and distinguishes it from the sibling dzengi_list_positions by explicitly saying 'history' rather than current positions. The mention of 'bounded' and 'filters' further sharpens the scope without ambiguity.
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 word 'history' implies it is for past positions and not current ones, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus dzengi_list_positions or mention any exclusions. There is no direct callout to alternatives or distinct use cases, leaving the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.