my_fills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful output context by mentioning tx hashes and confirming actual executions, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or whether the list is limited by time or only the 'limit' parameter.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then adds the key differentiators (confirms actual trades, includes tx hashes). Every phrase earns its place with no redundant 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?

For a simple read-only list with one optional parameter, the description gives enough to call it correctly: scope is the operator wallet, output is recent fills with tx hashes. It could be more explicit about the meaning of 'recent' or how limit applies, but the schema covers the limit default and the annotations cover safety.

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% and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory from its name and default value, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage as required.

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 identifies the resource as fills/executions and scopes it to the operator wallet, distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover orders, positions, or balances. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get,' but 'Recent executions' conveys the retrieval action well enough.

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 phrase 'confirms what actually traded' implies the intended use case of verifying completed trades, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of related siblings like open_orders, my_positions, or kalshi_get_trades.

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