get_outcome_trades

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

The description discloses a key behavioral filter (only outcome-market fills) and clarifies 'fills' rather than all orders. However, with no annotations present, it does not address potential pagination, ordering, return structure, or side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

A single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope with no redundant words. It is concise and 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?

The tool is moderately complex with no output schema or annotations. The description clarifies the scope (outcome markets) and type of history (fills), but leaves gaps about return format, pagination, and any ordering/limitations, which an agent may need to know.

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 schema documents 'user' as a wallet address and 'network' with an enum but lacks a description for 'network'. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning and does not compensate for the 50% schema description coverage gap, especially for network.

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 'Get', the resource 'user's trade (fill) history', and the scope 'filtered to outcome markets only'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_outcome_positions and get_outcome_open_orders, which cover different data types.

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 the tool is for retrieving outcome-market trade/fill history but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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