pro_get_trades

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It identifies the operation as a read (gets) and notes it returns executed trades with specific fields. However, it does not mention authentication requirements beyond the jwt parameter (which is in schema), rate limits, or that data is private (though [PRIVATE] is present). It provides basic but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loading purpose and output, then listing filters and use case. No extraneous words; every sentence adds information. Highly efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so description explains return values: executed trades with price, amount, side, fees, date, and mentions paginated list with metadata. This is sufficient for a simple list. Could improve by noting that only user's own trades are returned and that pagination may continue, but overall adequate for a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes filters ('trading pair, side, order type, date range, limit, offset, sort order') but adds little new meaning beyond the schema fields, which already describe each parameter. The mention of 'max 50' is redundant with the schema's own description. Description adds minimal value over schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Gets' and clearly identifies the resource 'user's trade history in Pro Trading'. It differentiates from sibling tools like pro_get_open_orders by focusing on executed trades, and lists output fields (price, amount, side, fees, date) making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to review past trading activity', providing a clear usage context. It mentions optional filters but does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., pro_get_open_orders for open orders), though sibling tool names imply these distinctions. Lacks exclusion guidance but is otherwise clear.

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