get_my_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 partially does so by explaining the inclusion logic (user-created trades and trades on owned offers), but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, default behavior for optional parameters, or the return format.

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 well-structured sentence that conveys the essential scope without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the low complexity (three optional parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description plus full schema coverage is mostly sufficient. It does not describe the return structure, but for a read-only list operation under this sibling set, this is a minor gap.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (state, userId, tradeType), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get all trades') and the resource scope ('for a user'), explicitly including both trades the user created and trades on offers they own. This distinguishes it from general trade-listing tools like list_trades by focusing on user-specific trades.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_trades or get_trade. There is no mention of exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or context in which this tool is preferred.

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