getTradeHistory

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

With no annotations, the description effectively conveys behavioral traits: rate limit (50 req/s), field query priority, time restriction (last 3 months for link IDs), and that results include per-leg info. It could mention idempotency or that it only returns filled/failed trades (inferred from status enum), but overall well-disclosed.

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 structured with clear sections (purpose, pagination, priority, rate limit, hints). It is somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with key info. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 must explain return values. It mentions per-leg info with examples (orderId, execFee) and cursor-based pagination. However, it lacks details on response structure or format. Fairly complete for a query tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, thus description must add meaning. It explains rfqLinkId/quoteLinkId time restriction and field priority, but introduces a 'category' parameter not present in the schema (e.g., 'use category=spot'), causing confusion. Other parameters like traderType and status lack detail. Valuable but incomplete.

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 'Query RFQ trade execution history' with optional filtering, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like queryTradeHistory by focusing on RFQ trades, and provides field query priority, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides an agent hint to use this tool after calling Execute Quote, and notes time restrictions for rfqLinkId/quoteLinkId. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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