Retrieve completed and cancelled orders from your Trading 212 account using cursor pagination for efficient browsing of historical order data.
List completed/cancelled historical orders with cursor pagination. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items to return (1–50; API default is 20). | |
| cursor | No | Cursor from a previous response's nextPagePath. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key safety trait by stating 'Read-only' and indicates pagination via 'cursor pagination'. However, it does not mention other behavioral details such as ordering, error conditions, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and while it is adequate, it is minimal.
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 just two short sentences, clear and free of filler. It front-loads the main action and scope, then adds the safety qualifier 'Read-only' in a standalone sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and a cursor semantics that implies a paginated response, this is largely complete. The lack of an output schema is not a blocker, though mentioning the response structure explicitly would have made it a 5.
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 description coverage is 100%, and both 'limit' and 'cursor' are already fully documented in the input schema. The description only reiterates 'cursor pagination' without adding new parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'historical orders', and adds the qualifier 'completed/cancelled' which clearly distinguishes it from tools like get_pending_orders. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool retrieves.
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 scope is explicit: completed/cancelled historical orders, which excludes pending orders and other account views. It does not explicitly mention get_pending_orders as the alternative for open orders, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.