kraken_get_trades_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'retrieve', implying a read operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, output structure, or any other side effects or constraints. The lack of behavioral detail beyond the obvious read nature is a significant gap for a tool with a potentially large data set.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. There is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval 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?

The tool has a detailed schema and an output schema, so return values are sufficiently covered by structured data. However, the description is minimal and does not address the relationship to similar sibling tools or the historical versus recent trade distinction. It is adequate but leaves gaps in usage context, making it minimally viable rather than complete.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieve') and names a clear resource ('history of trades and executed orders'). It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like kraken_get_recent_trades, which also retrieves trade data. Thus it meets the bar for a clear purpose but lacks sibling distinction.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kraken_get_recent_trades or kraken_query_orders. It only mentions a generic purpose ('for analysis or reporting'), which does not help an agent decide between similar trade-retrieval tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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