get_user_trades

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns recent fills for a currency and states the returned fields (price, size, fees, P&L, IV, underlying price), which conveys a read-only, disclosure-oriented behavior. It does not explicitly mention side effects or safety, but the get/Shows framing makes the read nature clear.

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 three tightly written sentences: purpose first, then critical filtering guidance, then sibling routing. There is no filler, and all sentences earn their 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 read-only trade-history tool with six well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, required filtering behavior, returned data fields, and when to use a sibling tool. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 and all six parameters are already documented. The description adds practical emphasis on filtering by kind but does not add new meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema 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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Get recent trade fills for a currency," clearly distinguishing this from Get user trades by instrument. It also names the sibling alternative and lists the returned trade fields, making the tool's 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 explicitly instructs the agent to always filter by kind and gives the direct alternative: use get_user_trades_by_instrument if the specific instrument name is known. This provides clear when-to-use and when-to-choose-another-tool guidance.

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