Executed order history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral details: ordering (newest first), pagination via cursor, and optional ticker filter. It doesn't mention edge cases like empty results, but this is not critical given the annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage and pagination notes. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy. It is concise yet informative.

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 list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers return contents, ordering, pagination, and filtering. Annotations provide safety context, and the description fills in the behavioral gaps. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by linking cursor to pagination ('pass the returned nextCursor') and ticker to filtering, which goes beyond the schema's field descriptions. It also clarifies the return content, indirectly explaining limit's purpose.

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 the tool returns past, already-executed orders with specifics like what was bought/sold, price, and taxes. The phrase 'already-executed' distinguishes it from pending order tools, and 'realised results' differentiates it from transaction history. This is a specific verb+resource description with clear scope.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for questions about trading activity or realised results', providing clear context. Pagination instructions ('pass the returned nextCursor to continue') offer practical usage guidance. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity versus siblings.

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