Get Trade History

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does mention the required environment variables (POLONIEX_API_KEY and POLONIEX_API_SECRET), which is valuable. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, result ordering, or the response structure, which are relevant for a fetch tool.

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 clear sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the main action and immediately follows with the key prerequisite, making it efficient and easily scannable.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand its core function (account trade history with optional filters). It lacks explicit mention of pagination, but the schema covers the pagination parameters, and the overall purpose is sufficiently clear.

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?

All six parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the schema. The phrase 'optional filters' abstractly refers to the parameters but does not detail any of them; the schema already does that work.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as the account's trade history across orders. This distinguishes it from related tools like get_market_trades (public trades) and get_order_trades (trades for a specific order), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for retrieving account trade history with optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like get_orders_history or get_account_activity. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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