Account 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 behavior — result ordering (newest first) and backward-only pagination via cursor — but says nothing about limits' effect on payload size, rate limiting, or the auth difference between account_id, sub_account_id, and wallet_address, which matters for a history endpoint.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the resource enumeration comes first, then ordering, then pagination. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

For a 9-parameter history tool with no output schema, the description does not indicate what a returned row contains or how records differ across the five kinds, which is the main gap an agent would hit when interpreting results. It is adequate to invoke the tool correctly, but not complete enough to use the output confidently.

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 already fairly high at 78%, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns the extra point by translating enum values into domain meaning — 'fills (trades)', 'positions (closed positions)', 'transactions (deposits, withdrawals, transfers)' — and by explaining that the cursor is an id taken from the last returned row.

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 ('Account history') and enumerates the five record kinds it returns, mapping each to plain language (fills = trades, positions = closed positions, transactions = deposits/withdrawals/transfers). This implicitly separates it from siblings like strike_get_open_orders and strike_get_positions, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

It gives concrete paging guidance ('Use cursor (an id from the last row) to page back') and sort direction, which helps invocation. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives — nothing says to prefer strike_get_open_orders for live orders or strike_get_positions for current positions over this historical view, leaving that inference to the agent.

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