hl_historical_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states 'for user' without detailing what is returned (e.g., pagination, time range, order statuses). The word 'historical' implies a read operation, but the description does not confirm read-only nature or any other behavioral traits.

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 short but under-specified, reading as a fragment rather than a clear instruction. The parenthetical 'historicalOrders' is redundant and does not earn its place, making the description less effective despite its brevity.

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?

Although the tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, the description omits valuable context such as what 'historical' includes (e.g., all order statuses, time window) and how to specify the user. It is a bare minimum that leaves room for confusion.

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?

The schema lists only 'user' as a required string, and the description does not explain its format or constraints (e.g., is it an address, ID, or username?). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the parameter name.

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 tool's resource (historical orders) and scope (for user), distinguishing it from siblings like hl_open_orders. However, it lacks a verb, reading as a label rather than an action, and the parenthetical 'historicalOrders' is redundant with the tool name.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hl_open_orders or hl_user_fills. It does not mention any prerequites, exclusions, or contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name.

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