getMovePositionHistory

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and no destructive intent, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: max 7-day range per query, what record fields are returned, and the meaning of each status value. This goes beyond the structured 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 compact and well organized: a clear definition sentence, a purposeful agent hint, then concise behavioral details. Every sentence adds useful information, and the most important scoping detail (7-day range, status meanings) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description does a decent job covering return contents and status meanings, but it omits important invocation details such as pagination with cursor/limit and the time parameter format. For an 8-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, this leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to call 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 for the bare parameter list. It does mention key filters (category, symbol, status, blockTradeId) and explains status values, but it does not explain limit/cursor pagination semantics or the expected format/units for startTime and endTime. Partial compensation only.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query the history of position move (block trade) orders.' It clearly establishes this as a read-oriented history lookup and distinguishes it from related tools like movePosition, which would create or modify positions, and getOpenOrders, which would show current orders.

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 'Agent hint' explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to check status and history of move position requests.' It also lists the available filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the intended use case is concrete enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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