get_my_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. The description adds useful defaults (limit default 200, max 500) but says nothing about sort order, pagination behavior, or what 'completed' excludes. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 in one sentence and the argument list is tightly formatted with no filler. Minor redundancy in restating that optional params are optional, but nothing wasteful.

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 the params are reasonably covered. However, ordering of results, pagination semantics, and the boundary between this tool and its many order-history siblings remain unaddressed.

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 has to carry the parameter burden and largely does: it gives date formats (YYYY-MM-DD or UNIX epoch, UTC), identifies cointype/markettype as ticker filters, and states the limit default and cap. This is materially more than the bare schema types provide.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (completed order history scoped to 'my'). The possessive 'my' implicitly separates it from the market-wide get_completed_orders, but that sibling relationship is never made explicit. Clear but without direct sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite a crowded sibling set including get_completed_orders, get_my_market_order_history, and get_my_open_market_orders. The reader must infer from the name alone when this tool applies.

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