get_historical_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says 'all historical trades' but does not address pagination, result caps, authentication, or what the response contains — all relevant for wallet history that could be very large.

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?

One efficient sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, though there is also very little content for the length to earn credit against.

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 a single fully documented parameter and no annotations or output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient, but it omits pagination behavior and return shape for what could be an unbounded history query.

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% and the schema already explains the bech32 'addr1' format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only that the address is a 'Cardano wallet address', which rephrases rather than extends the schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('historical trades') scoped to a wallet address. It implicitly separates itself from get_global_trades and get_token_trades via the 'specific Cardano wallet address' scope, but it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for a wallet's own trade history, but the description gives no when-to-use framing, no exclusions, and no pointer to get_global_trades or get_token_trades for the non-wallet scope.

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