Order history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: results include all statuses, and trailPrice is defined as a trail distance rather than a level. This prevents misinterpretation of returned 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?

Two short sentences front-load the primary function and then add a single targeted caveat. There is no filler, and every sentence 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?

The description covers the core query semantics and one important output nuance, but with no output schema it leaves the return shape, ordering, and pagination unspecified. It also does not clarify the behavior of the optional endTimestamp parameter. These are noticeable gaps for an agent invoking the 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 only 33%, with only accountId described. The description mentions a time window, which loosely maps to startTimestamp/endTimestamp, but it does not explain how the window is bounded, whether endTimestamp is optional or defaults to a value, or any parameter-specific semantics. The trailPrice note concerns output data, not input parameters, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 identifies the resource (orders), the scope (created in a time window), and the status coverage (any status). The title 'Order history' reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_open_orders or search_trades beyond the time-window phrasing.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Orders created in a time window' implies a historical query, but it never tells the agent when to prefer search_orders over list_open_orders or search_trades, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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