get_readonly_market_completed_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the 'authenticated read-only API' phrasing is consistent with them. The description usefully adds the pagination default (200) and cap (500), but does not disclose auth prerequisites or any rate-limit behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, 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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a compact, well-labeled Args block. Every line earns its place by documenting an otherwise undescribed parameter. The docstring formatting is slightly verbose but not 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the 0% schema-coverage gap for parameters and states scope. Only the missing when-to-use routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: it names each of the 5 params with format and examples (cointype 'such as BTC', markettype 'such as AUD or USDT', startdate/enddate as YYYY-MM-DD or UNIX epoch, limit default 200/max 500). This cleanly compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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 clear verb (List) and specific resource (completed market orders) with the access mechanism (authenticated read-only API). This distinguishes it implicitly from get_readonly_market_open_orders (open vs completed), but it never explicitly names or contrasts the sibling tools it overlaps with, so differentiation requires inference.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It never clarifies when an agent should pick this over get_readonly_market_open_orders, get_my_market_order_history, or get_completed_orders, all of which are adjacent siblings. Only the 'read-only API' framing hints at context.

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