get_completed_orders_summary

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'recent' and 'public' scope qualifiers, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether 'summary' aggregates by pair — gaps an agent would care about.

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?

Front-loaded single-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block. Efficient overall; the Args section largely duplicates schema fields but earns its place with the examples.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, with 0% schema coverage and dense sibling overlap, the description leaves the agent without enough to distinguish this tool from get_completed_orders or to understand result limits.

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 carry the load and it does: it defines cointype as a coin ticker (BTC example) and clarifies markettype is optional with a ticker example (USDT). This meaningfully compensates for the undocumented schema, though it omits valid-value format constraints.

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 ('List') plus resource ('recent completed public orders') and it signals a distinct output shape ('combined summary'), which distinguishes it from the raw-order sibling get_completed_orders. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite many overlapping siblings (get_completed_orders, get_my_order_history, get_readonly_market_completed_orders). The agent must infer that 'public' means not-my-orders on its own.

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