fetch_my_trades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the auth requirement, the sort order (newest first), the response shape, and the full pagination contract including that cursors are opaque and must not be constructed. It does not mention rate limits or explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns and how to page through it; every sentence either states scope, the return contract, or a usage rule. Slight overlap with the schema's `cursor` prose, but the description adds the loop-level view the per-field text cannot.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description takes on return-value documentation and does so completely — naming `items` and `next_cursor` and their roles. Auth, ordering, and pagination termination are all covered; nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema — notably that `limit` bounds ONE page rather than a total, and that the pagination loop terminates on a null `next_cursor`. That is exactly the kind of clarification a schema cannot easily express.

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 — 'List the authenticated account's fills (executed trades)' — and the parenthetical resolves the ambiguous term 'fills'. The qualifier 'authenticated account's' cleanly separates it from the market-wide `fetch_trades`/`get_trades` siblings without needing to name 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?

Gives explicit operational guidance for the pagination loop: keep calling with `cursor: <previous next_cursor>` until null, and warns that `limit` is per page, not a total. It states the credential requirement. It stops short of naming a specific alternative for public/market-wide trade history, so it lands at clear-context rather than full routing guidance.

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