list_trades

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It discloses the platform-wide scope and filter options, but does not mention pagination, response format, rate limits, or any data sensitivity. This is adequate for a simple read-only list tool, but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with the filtering capability. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It does not describe the return value or pagination, but given the absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap for a simple list 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 both parameters are already described in the input schema. The description merely paraphrases 'Filter by trade type or state' without adding any new meaning or detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 lists all trades on the platform, using the verb 'List' and the resource 'trades'. It implicitly distinguishes from get_my_trades by specifying 'all trades on the platform', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate from get_trade.

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 provides clear context: use this to list all platform trades and filter by trade type or state. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_my_trades, but the platform-wide scope is implied enough.

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