get_crypto_account_history

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description goes further: newest-first ordering, cursor paging, limit range 1-500 default 50, per-venue coverage in the page header, and values kept in native asset. It also discloses that fetched rows land in a local append-only ledger with no broker writes — a meaningful side effect the annotations don't express. Rate limits and auth needs are unstated, keeping it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core result, then parameter detail in a compact block; no filler sentences. The parenthetical about the local ledger is appended slightly awkwardly but still earns its place.

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 an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining burden is paging and filtering semantics — paging is fully handled and date filtering is precise. Only the symbol/venue filter semantics leave a real gap for a 7-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must carry the load; it does for start/end (inclusive UTC YYYY-MM-DD, default last 7 days), limit (1-500, default 50) and cursor (next_cursor), plus `kind` via the opening sentence. But `symbol` and `venue` are never explained — venue is only obliquely hinted at via 'per-venue coverage'. Partial compensation.

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 first sentence names the exact resource (own crypto futures fills with fees, or funding paid/received) and its ordering/paging behavior, which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_crypto_positions or get_trading_pnl. It never names a sibling to contrast against, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implied through the `kind` enum (fills vs funding) and the default 7-day window, but the description never states when to reach for this tool over get_trading_pnl or get_transactions, nor any prerequisite (e.g. broker connection must exist). Guidance is present but inferential.

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