get_trade_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication requirement ('Requires API key with trade permissions'), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the trade history is returned in (though there's no output schema).

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second states the authentication requirement. There's zero wasted verbiage and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and auth context. However, for a tool that retrieves historical data with filtering options, more context about return format, data freshness, or typical use cases would be helpful. The description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters with their descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'completed trade history with partner names', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_trade_offer' or 'get_trade_offers', which focus on pending offers rather than completed history.

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 mentions 'Requires API key with trade permissions' which provides some context about prerequisites, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_trade_offers' or 'get_trade_offers_summary'. There's no explicit when/when-not usage guidance.

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