get_user_fills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't mention any other traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or error handling. For a tool that accesses trading history without annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality ('Get trading history (fills)') and includes essential scope information. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 context: no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or authentication, doesn't explain the return format (e.g., what data 'fills' includes), and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools. For a tool that retrieves trading history, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'user' documented as 'User wallet address (optional, defaults to configured wallet)'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by restating that it retrieves fills 'for the configured wallet or a specific user', which aligns with the schema's description. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional parameter details like format examples or constraints.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get trading history (fills) for the configured wallet or a specific user'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('trading history (fills)'), and scope ('configured wallet or a specific user'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_fills_by_time', which appears to be a time-filtered variant, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 context by mentioning 'configured wallet or a specific user', suggesting this tool retrieves fills for either the default wallet or a specified one. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_fills_by_time' or other sibling tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent in selecting between similar tools.

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