Today's Executions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return format and filtering behavior, which is useful but not rich behavioral context (e.g., pagination, timezone handling, auth requirements). Since annotations carry the safety burden, the description's additions are moderate but not extensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return structure, with the filtering hint appended. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff. Ideal length for a simple read tool.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the return format, filtering options, and temporal scope. Annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is the lack of mention of result limits or default behavior (e.g., does it return all executions or a capped list?), but for a 'today' execution list this is likely minor and does not block correct invocation.

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%, so the input schema already documents the parameters (symbol and order_id as filters). The description reiterates 'Pass symbol or order_id to filter' but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('today's trade executions (fills)'), and enumerates the returned fields (executions[]{order_id, trade_id, symbol, side, quantity, price, trade_done_at}). It also mentions filtering options, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like history_executions (past) and today_orders (orders vs executions). This is a precise, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 implies the temporal scope ('today's') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as history_executions or today_orders. It provides context but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and scope. This is adequate but lacks clear routing guidance.

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