get_trade

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and mentions the inclusion of parent offer stats, but it does not describe error behavior, authorization needs, or what 'full details' encompasses. Some transparency is present, but gaps remain.

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 is concise, front-loaded with the action, and free of unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the tool's core function and a key differentiating detail.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context by stating the resource type and the unique inclusion of parent offer stats. However, the lack of an output schema means the return format is not fully specified, though 'full details' offers a general expectation.

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 100% coverage for the only parameter (tradeId) with a clear description ('Trade UUID'). The description adds no additional semantic detail about how tradeId is used, so it does not exceed the baseline established by the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a single trade'), and adds a distinguishing feature ('including the parent offer stats') that separates it from sibling tools like list_trades or get_my_trades. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and scope.

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 usage when a specific tradeId is known and full details are needed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to alternatives. Sibling tools like list_trades are not referenced, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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