atas_trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns recent executed trades and does not disclose ordering, limits, whether it includes partial fills, or any session-specific caveats. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that returns a list of records.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential function (recent fills) and context (current session) efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

While the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (which presumably details the return structure), the description leaves out nuances such as whether the list is chronological, if it includes cancelled attempts, or how 'current session' is defined. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate but not thorough; a mention of ordering or scope would improve it.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exist, and the schema already covers everything (100% coverage). No additional semantic information is needed.

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 tool returns 'Recent executed trades (fills) of the current session.' This specifies the verb (executed trades) and resource (current session). It is distinct enough from siblings like atas_orders (which likely handles order status) and atas_position, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus others. The description simply states what it returns without mentioning use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would not know if it should prefer this over atas_orders for viewing trade history or atas_snapshot for a summary.

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