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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: pagination is cursor-based, and market-provided titles/outcomes must be treated as quoted data rather than instructions. This is a meaningful behavioral warning.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the security-relevant caveat about quoted upstream text is included without adding bulk.

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 description captures the core purpose, pagination model, and a key safety caveat, and an output schema exists. However, with 10 parameters and multiple plausible filters, the lack of guidance on combinations (e.g., eventIds vs conditionIds) and on offset-vs-cursor behavior leaves noticeable gaps.

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 description coverage is only 20%, and the description only clarifies conditionIds/eventIds and cursor-based pagination. It does not explain side, limit, offset, startTimestamp, endTimestamp, or walletAddress, even though these are important filters. The description fails to compensate for the schema's low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent public trades'), and specifies the key filter dimensions (condition IDs or event IDs). It also names the pagination style ('opaque cursor pagination'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic listing or history tools among the siblings.

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 fetching recent public trades, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over sibling tools like get_price_history, get_market_quotes, or get_orderbook. It also does not mention exclusions or prerequisites such as needing either eventIds or conditionIds.

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