get_trade_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the purpose and documents the 'days' parameter default; it does not mention read-only nature, pagination, order of results, or any other behavioral traits.

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: a one-line purpose followed by a single parameter doc line. No wasted words; 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 tool with one simple parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the parameter and the basic purpose, but lacks any context about scope (e.g., which account), data returned, or relation to sibling tools. The output schema covers return structure, mitigating the need for that.

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 only defines the 'days' parameter as an integer with a default of 7, but the description adds the semantic 'Number of days to look back', clarifying the parameter's meaning. This compensates for the schema's lack of a property description.

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 'Get trade history for the account' with a specific verb and resource. The resource 'trade history' is unique among sibling tools (e.g., get_funding_history, get_account_summary), inherently distinguishing it.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., not funding history). Usage is only implied by the name and short description.

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