Get Smart Orders History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses an important behavioral requirement: POLONIEX_API_KEY and POLONIEX_API_SECRET must be present in the environment. It also clarifies that the tool returns historical data ('triggered/canceled'), implying a read-only operation. It does not mention rate limits or output format, but the key requirements and scope provide solid transparency.

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 exactly two sentences: the first gives the core purpose and capabilities, the second states authentication prerequisites. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, so the description should help the agent understand what to expect. It provides purpose and auth, but does not explain the return structure (e.g., a list of orders) or pagination behavior (despite parameters like 'from' and 'direction' existing in the schema). Given the rich schema, this is minimally viable but leaves room for more context.

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 schema description covers all 11 parameters (100% coverage), including enums and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description only says 'optional filters' without elaborating on any specific parameter syntax or relationships. It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('historical (triggered/canceled) smart orders'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_smart_open_orders and get_orders_history. The parenthetical about triggered/canceled adds specificity about the type of history.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need historical smart order data, not open or active orders. It clearly notes the availability of optional filters, giving context for use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for open orders use get_smart_open_orders'), 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.