历史订单

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results are returned in reverse chronological order, which is a useful behavior, but it does not disclose pagination, default limit behavior, or how the optional filters interact.

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 front-loaded and wastes no words: it tells what is returned, for which resource, and in what order, in a single efficient sentence.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully guide a correct call. It only establishes the required symbol and ordering, while filter parameters, default limit, pagination, and output format are not addressed.

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 tool description only refers to the symbol via 'specified trading pair'. startTime, endTime, limit, and orderId are not explained, leaving their filtering semantics and combination behavior to be guessed from schema names and constraints.

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 states a specific action ('returns') and resource ('historical orders') scoped to a specified trading pair, with order direction specified as time-descending. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like trading_open_orders or trading_trades, but 'historical' conveys the core distinction.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trading_open_orders, trading_trades, or trading_get_order. There are no concrete conditions or exclusions, so the agent must infer use case from the name alone.

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