Get Trades

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

The description complements the readOnlyHint annotation by revealing that the brokerage session is auto-acquired and auto-released after idle, which is valuable behavioral context. It also discloses the fixed time window. It does not describe return format or pagination, but the annotation already covers the safety profile.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose and scope, the second addresses the session prerequisite. Every word adds value, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what data is returned (trade executions), the time window, and the session handling. It could offer a bit more detail about the content of the history (e.g., fields included), but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the time range (current day + 6 previous days), which acts as implicit parameter documentation. Baseline of 4 for zero params is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('trade execution history') with a precise time scope ('current day + 6 previous days'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_transaction_history or get_live_orders by focusing on executed trades rather than all transactions or order statuses.

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 clear context that this tool retrieves recent trade executions and that a brokerage session is required, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as get_transaction_history or mention scenarios where this tool should not be used. The session requirement is a useful prerequisite, but there are no exclusions or explicit alternative recommendations.

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