get_user_trades_by_instrument

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns price, size, fees, underlying price, and IV at trade time, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or cover defaults like time range, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: the first states the tool's core function, the second provides usage guidance with an example, and the third lists return fields. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 query tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values and the key usage context. It could be slightly more explicit that this returns the authenticated user's trades, but 'my fills' and the sibling get_user_trades provide enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds a concrete instrument_name example but does not add meaning beyond the schema for count, sorting, or timestamps. Baseline 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 a specific verb and resource ('Get trade history for a SPECIFIC instrument') and includes a concrete example. It distinguishes this from the sibling get_user_trades by emphasizing instrument-specific filtering and the preference when the instrument is known.

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?

'Preferred when you know the instrument name' gives a clear condition for use, and the example reinforces the intended scenario. It does not explicitly name the alternative get_user_trades or state when not to use it, but the condition is clear enough.

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