Get closed trades

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: it notes that trades are 'paper trades' (not real), defines roundtrips, and specifies the scope 'for the configured user'. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting 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 effectively conveys the core purpose, scope, and ordering. Every phrase adds value without redundancy.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what is listed, ordering, and user scope. It could mention that results are limited by the parameter, but that is implied.

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 100% and the schema already documents the 'limit' parameter with defaults, maximum, and description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage guidance for the parameter.

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 explicitly states the verb 'list', resource 'closed paper trades', and defines them as 'completed buy→sell roundtrips'. It also specifies the ordering 'most recent first', clearly distinguishing from siblings like 'get_open_positions'.

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 usage for retrieving completed trades, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_open_positions' or 'get_recent_transactions'. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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