get_trade_history

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating that records are persistent and sorted most-recent-first. However, it does not explain what 'modo activo' means, how pagination behaves, or what the response contains.

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 compact sentence with no filler; it front-loads the purpose and includes a useful constraint on the limit parameter. It is concise, though arguably so terse that some meaning is lost.

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 simple two-parameter list tool, the description is minimal but incomplete: no output schema exists, so return values are unspecified; offset semantics are missing; and the key term 'modo activo' is undefined. An agent could invoke the tool, but it would lack important context for interpreting results or paginating correctly.

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 the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It adds the valid range for limit ('limit 1..200'), which is helpful, but it gives no explanation of offset or how paging relates to the recency ordering. This is only partial compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies a specific resource ('Comprobantes persistentes del modo activo') and an ordering behavior ('recientes primero'), which clearly points to trade history as distinct from price history or movements. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name plus the resource phrase make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_movements, get_price_history, or get_portfolio. The phrase 'modo activo' hints at a context, but it is not explained and no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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