tradesFetch recent trade history from Gemini for a symbol; optional timestamp filters to a start time and limit_trades caps the result count. Returns price, amount, type, and timestamp per trade.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | ||
| timestamp | No | ||
| limit_trades | No | ||
| include_breaks | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destroyHint=false, etc. The description adds value by specifying return fields (price, amount, type, timestamp) and the Gemini source, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictory behaviors are mentioned.
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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes essential details. Every part is useful; no wasted words.
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 relatively simple, and the description covers symbol, optional filters, and output fields. However, it omits the 'include_breaks' parameter, which slightly reduces completeness given the presence of 4 parameters and an output schema.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It covers 3 of 4 parameters (symbol, timestamp, limit_trades) but omits 'include_breaks'. The description adds meaning for the covered parameters but ignores one, leaving a gap.
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 'Fetch recent trade history from Gemini for a symbol', specifying the verb (fetch), resource (trade history), source (Gemini), and scope (by symbol). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'candles' or 'ticker'.
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 indicates when to use the tool (fetching recent trades for a symbol) and mentions optional timestamp filters and result caps, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools serve overlapping research purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, entity_profile, compare_entities), which could confuse an agent. However, descriptions help differentiate them by use case (single vs multi-part, grounded vs standard, etc.). Some overlap remains.
Tool names mix patterns: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), others are noun_phrase (price_feed, recent_alerts) or adjective_noun (ticker_v2). No strong naming convention, but all use snake_case consistently, making them readable.
40 tools is on the high side for a single server, covering both Gemini exchange data and Pipeworx's broad knowledge tools. While each tool serves a purpose, the scope feels broad, and some tools could be separated into dedicated servers.
The Gemini exchange tools cover essential read-only data (order book, candles, ticker, trades), but lack order placement, likely intentionally. The Pipeworx tools provide extensive research capabilities across many domains, leaving few gaps for the stated purposes.