Get Orders History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions required API keys (POLONIEX_API_KEY, POLONIEX_API_SECRET) and scopes the operation to historical orders, adding meaningful context. However, it does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or other behaviors.

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 concise sentences, clearly front-loaded with the main action and then the prerequisite. 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?

Given the complexity of 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It covers purpose and auth but omits behavior like pagination, default state handling, or response format, leaving the agent under-informed for such a complex tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add details beyond 'optional filters', relying on the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not compensate for any gaps because none exist, but also adds no supplementary meaning.

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 fetches historical (closed/canceled) orders, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it 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 (historical, closed/canceled) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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