Wallet trade history (fills)

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses ordering (newest first), the default 24h window, what the aggregates contain, and the non-obvious default that split orders are merged (paired with the mergeSplitOrders flag). It does not mention rate limits or the maximum result set, though the limit cap is in the schema.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the payload (every fill, newest first, with totals), then handles time-window formats and the merge default. No filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming volume, realized PnL, fees and a per-coin breakdown. Paging (limit/offset) is left entirely to the schema and the absence of a single-fill detail tool is unaddressed, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description restates the since/until accepted formats verbatim from the schema rather than adding interpretation, and only meaningfully reinforces the mergeSplitOrders default. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — every fill (buy/sell execution) a wallet made in a time window — plus ordering and aggregate contents. This implicitly separates it from siblings like wallet_closed_trades, wallet_open_orders and wallet_transfers, but never names them.

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 by the definition of a 'fill' and by the window semantics, so an agent can infer when this fits. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to alternatives such as wallet_closed_trades for position-level results.

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