paper_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Show paper trading order history' without mentioning whether it requires prior initialization, the scope of history returned, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool in a complex environment.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, which is efficient. However, it could be more informative without becoming verbose, e.g., by clarifying the scope of 'history'. Still, it earns a 4 for being well-structured and to the point.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description should provide enough context for the agent to understand its role. The current text is minimal and does not explain concepts like 'paper trading' or the type of order history (e.g., filled vs. cancelled). It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the tool is parameterless and the schema coverage is 100%.

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 action ('Show') and the resource ('paper trading order history'), which distinctly identifies the tool's purpose. It is specific enough to differentiate from siblings like 'order_history' (likely live trades) and 'paper_orders' (current open orders).

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'paper_orders' or 'order_history'. There are many sibling tools with overlapping functionality, but no context on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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