queryTradeHistory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are sorted by creation time descending, and there is a 100-record page limit. However, the 100-record cap duplicates the schema's maximum on limit, and the description omits edge cases like time-format expectations, default time range, or data scope.

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 scannable: a one-line summary, a short parameter section, and a use-cases list. It is front-loaded. Some bullets ('Time range filtering supported', 'Pagination support', 'Maximum 100 records per page') partly echo the schema, but the structure still earns its place.

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 four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It gives sorting, pagination, and use cases, but leaves critical operational details missing: whose trade records are returned, the time string format, and the exact meaning of index. These gaps could cause an agent to call the tool incorrectly.

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. It does map startTime/endTime to time-range filtering and index/limit to pagination, and it notes the maximum page size, which is helpful. But it does not explain the expected time format, whether index is a 1-based page number, or how pagination interacts with the descending sort.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Query historical trade records with pagination support.' It is clear about the core function. However, it does not differentiate from several similar siblings such as getTradeHistory, queryTrade, or getOrderHistory, leaving the unique scope ambiguous.

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 lists concrete use cases: generating trade reports, reconciliation and auditing, and exporting trade history for accounting. This provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so an agent must infer the choice from the sibling list.

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