getTradeHistory

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses rate limiting (50 rps), cursor-based pagination, field query priority, the 3-month search restriction on link IDs, and the detailed per-leg fields returned. This adds substantial behavioral context that an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the format is readable, but the description is longer than necessary: the 3-month rfqLinkId/quoteLinkId restriction and the per-leg field list are each stated twice. This redundancy prevents a higher score.

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 tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers filtering, pagination, rate limits, time constraints, and output contents. It is not fully complete because there is no structured return shape and the unsupported 'category' parameter creates ambiguity, but it provides enough context for correct use in the intended Execute Quote workflow.

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 carries the burden, and it compensates well by explaining pagination semantics, field query priority, and the time-restricted behavior of rfqLinkId/quoteLinkId. It is slightly incomplete because not every parameter is individually explained and it mentions a 'category' parameter that does not appear in the input schema, which could mislead an agent.

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 action and resource: 'Query RFQ trade execution history' with optional filters. The agent hint 'Use this to check trade execution results after calling Execute Quote' pins down the exact workflow, which separates it from generic history tools like queryTradeHistory or getOrderHistory in the sibling list.

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?

It gives explicit context for when to call the tool ('after calling Execute Quote') and operational constraints such as field query priority and the 3-month limitation for rfqLinkId/quoteLinkId. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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