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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is to add context, which it does by disclosing ordering, pagination fields (hasMore, complete, nextFromBlock), and completion semantics. It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but the pagination contract is well covered.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words. Core behavior and pagination loop are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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?

Without an output schema, the description supplies the critical pagination contract (hasMore, complete, nextFromBlock) needed to consume results correctly. It does not describe the shape or fields of individual trade objects, which is a minor remaining gap for a data-returning tool.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds only modest guidance on fromBlock usage (pass nextFromBlock while hasMore) and does not meaningfully elaborate on market or limit beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 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?

States a specific resource ('Trades in a market') with ordering ('oldest first') and pagination ('paged by block'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_market or list_markets, leaving a small gap in differentiation.

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?

Provides a concrete call pattern: start without fromBlock, then pass nextFromBlock while hasMore is true, and treat complete as final. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing, which keeps it below a 5.

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