get_order_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: return shape ({ items, next_cursor }), pagination semantics (opaque token, null terminal, verbatim pass-back), limit semantics (per-page not total), auth requirement ('Requires API credentials'), and ordering. This is rich behavioral disclosure well beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covering return format, pagination, limit semantics, and auth. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or verbatim schema repetition.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fully complete: it covers purpose, status filter, ordering, return shape, pagination loop, limit semantics, and credentials requirement. An agent has everything needed to invoke and iterate correctly without guessing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by tying both parameters into a coherent pagination loop and emphasizing the common misunderstanding that 'limit sets the size of ONE page, not a total.' The cursor mechanics are largely redundant with the schema, but the workflow integration and limit clarification justify a 4.

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+resource pair ('Get the authenticated account's terminal-status order history') and enumerates the exact statuses included (filled/cancelled/rejected/expired) plus ordering (newest first). The 'terminal-status' qualifier clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_open_orders and get_order.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool — for terminal-status orders of the authenticated account — which implicitly separates it from get_open_orders (non-terminal) and get_demo_orders (demo account). It also explains the pagination workflow ('keep calling with cursor until next_cursor is null'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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