Get Historical Orders

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: cursor-based pagination, rate limit (6 req/1m), and the inclusion of fill details, taxes, and realised P&L.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then concise details on filtering, pagination, and rate limit. Every clause earns its place; no repetition or filler.

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, paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key functional aspects: what orders are included, optional filter, pagination mechanism, and rate limit. It is slightly lacking on the response shape, but the core use-case is well specified.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for ticker ('Optionally filter') and cursor ('cursor-based pagination'), but these are already indicated in the schema. It does not add substantial new meaning 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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('paginated history of all past orders') and details the content (fill details, taxes, realised P&L), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pending_orders or get_order_by_id.

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 context is clear: this tool is for historical orders with optional ticker filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_pending_orders for non-past orders, so guidelines are implied rather than explicit.

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