trade_history

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

The description includes '[REQUIRES AUTH]' indicating authentication needed, which is useful. However, no annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, has rate limits, or returns mutable data.

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 very concise at 11 words, no fluff. It includes the auth requirement upfront, which is good. However, it could be slightly longer to add usage context without being verbose.

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 no output schema, simple parameters, and no annotations, the description minimally covers what the tool does but lacks context about return format, pagination, or how it differs from similar tools. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get trade fill history' specifies a clear action ('Get') and resource ('trade fill history'). It distinguishes from sibling 'trades' which may refer to active or open trades, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'order_history' or '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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar siblings like 'trades', 'order_history', or 'open_orders'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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