get_order_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states authentication requirements, the list of statuses, and sorting order (newest first). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, potential rate limits, or whether the entire history is returned. This leaves some behavioral traits implicit.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value: the first states the resource and filtering, the second notes authentication requirements.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It specifies resource, filtering, sorting, and authentication. Minor omission: it does not explicitly state that open orders are excluded (though 'terminal-status' implies this), nor describe return format. Still, it covers essential context for an agent to decide whether to use it.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that results are filtered by terminal-status orders and sorted newest first, which the parameter schema does not convey. This enhances understanding of what data is returned.

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 states the tool retrieves the authenticated account's order history for terminal-status orders (filled, cancelled, rejected, expired) sorted newest first. It specifies a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('order history'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_open_orders (open orders) or get_fills (trade fills).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (to get terminal-status order history) and mentions authentication requirements. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_open_orders or get_order, though the purpose implicitly covers this.

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