get_my_market_order_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds operational context (default 200 records, hard cap of 500) but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or how far back history goes.

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?

One lead sentence followed by a tidy Args block; nothing is redundant. The prose form of the arg list is slightly verbose compared to schema-level docs but remains easy to scan.

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, and all parameters are described. The remaining gap is the lack of auth/permission context and any pointer to sibling tools that return similar data.

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 full burden, and it documents all five parameters including accepted date formats ('YYYY-MM-DD or UNIX epoch') and the limit default/max. It does not state valid values for cointype or markettype, leaving two filters loosely specified.

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 first line gives a specific verb and resource ('List your completed market order history'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_my_order_history or get_my_open_market_orders. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer it over the general history tool, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_my_order_history, get_completed_orders, or get_readonly_market_completed_orders, all of which sit in the sibling list. The agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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