strategy_get_trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned fields and the paginated read model, but is silent on default/max page size behavior, ordering defaults, and what the idempotentHint=false / openWorldHint=true flags mean for repeat calls.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope verb comes first and the content list follows. It is efficient but dense enough that the pagination and content clauses compete for attention in one breath.

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 10-parameter tool with a nested object, a required entity identifier, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. The verification/expectation parameters and the entity scoping are the biggest missing pieces, and nothing explains what a call returns beyond a field name list.

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 only 20% across 10 parameters. The description gestures at pagination (limit/offset) but never explains the required entity_id, the order enum, or the guardrail parameters (target_id, expected_symbol, expected_session, expected_layout_id, expected_inputs) whose pre-write verification semantics are non-obvious and undocumented anywhere else.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Read complete trade history') plus the payload contents (paired entry/exit, commission, account value). This implicitly separates it from the sibling strategy_get_orders (orders vs. executed trades), but the distinction is never stated outright.

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?

'using pagination' hints at the mechanism but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names strategy_get_orders or strategy_get_report as the alternative for a different slice of results. An agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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