get_trade_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Only the basic retrieval action is implied.

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 sentence, which is concise but too brief. Important details are omitted, making it less effective despite brevity.

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?

No output schema and 3 parameters with low coverage. The tool returns execution history, but the description does not specify output format, ordering, or constraints. With many sibling tools, this incomplete specification hinders correct selection and 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'for a given user' (user_id). The 'limit' parameter (default 100, exclusiveMinimum 0) and 'workflow_id' (optional string) are not described, leaving agents to guess their semantics.

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 action ('get') and resource ('trade execution history') and specifies it is for a given user. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pnl_history' but could be more specific about scope (e.g., time range).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_execution_details' or 'reconcile_trades'. The description lacks any contextual cues for appropriate usage.

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