fetch_trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the return type (stringified JSON or None) but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'failed' means in practice.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences that directly address purpose and return values. The structure with 'Parameters:' and 'Returns:' sections is clear, though the mention of 'ctx' parameter creates minor confusion since it doesn't exist in the schema.

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 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and return information. However, it lacks context about what 'closed trades' means in this system, how the data is formatted in the JSON response, or what conditions cause failure - leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand full usage.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly doesn't waste space on parameters, earning a high baseline score. The mention of 'ctx' in the description is actually misleading since it's not in the schema, but this doesn't significantly detract.

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 'fetch' and the resource 'history of closed trades', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_backtest_history' or 'fetch_performance' that might also retrieve historical data, preventing a perfect score.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_backtest_history' or 'fetch_performance'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what distinguishes it from similar tools in the sibling list.

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