get_executions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Today's fills (or since ISO timestamp)', offering no information about whether the tool is read-only, what the output structure looks like, or any limits on the data returned. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or data 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?

At three words, the description is extremely concise. However, it sacrifices important details (e.g., output format, behavior) that could be included without significant bloat. It is front-loaded but not fully informative, balancing brevity against completeness.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and one parameter, the description should at least hint at the return type (e.g., list of execution objects) and clarify the scope (e.g., 'today' meaning calendar day or last 24 hours). The current text is too vague to fully prepare an agent for correct use.

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 parameter 'since' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description adds that it is an ISO timestamp, which clarifies the parameter's format and purpose. However, it does not specify the exact ISO format (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss') or whether the timestamp is inclusive, limiting full clarity.

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 'fills' to indicate executed trades, which is a specific term for completed orders. It clearly states that it retrieves today's executions with an optional timestamp filter. While not explicitly distinguishing from siblings like 'get_positions' or 'get_historical_bars', the context of 'executions' aligns with trade fills, making it reasonably clear.

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 obtaining today's fills or fills since a given timestamp, but provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives such as 'get_positions' (current positions) or 'list_open_orders' (open orders). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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