hl_get_fills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('get') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose rate limits or whether it returns a list. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but more detail on behavior would improve clarity.

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 description is very concise: two sentences and an args line, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary content.

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?

Given one parameter, an output schema (so return structure is documented elsewhere), and sibling context, the description is largely complete. It could mention maximum limit or absence of results, but it adequately supports agent selection.

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?

The only parameter 'limit' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description fully explains it: 'Number of recent trades to return (default 50)'. This adds necessary meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 description clearly states 'Get your recent trade history (fills)', which uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('fills'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hl_get_open_orders or hl_get_user_state.

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 notes the prerequisite of environment variables (HL_WALLET_ADDRESS or HL_PRIVATE_KEY), providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives, but the sibling list implies differentiation.

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