get_fills

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

The description reveals key behaviors: returns up to 500 fills, lookback window with default 7 days and max 90 days. However, it lacks details on whether fills are sorted, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but is only partially transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add key constraints. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input constraints but omits return structure (e.g., fields in each fill). It is adequate for basic use but could improve by describing the output format or linking to documentation.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the constraint 'up to 500 fills' not present in the schema, enhancing understanding of the tool's capacity. Default and max for 'days' are already in schema, but the added limit is valuable.

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 it gets recent fills/trades for a Hyperliquid wallet, specifying constraints like up to 500 fills and default 7-day lookback. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_funding, get_positions) by targeting a specific data type.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pnl_summary or get_positions. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios where this tool is appropriate, or situations to avoid.

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