get_trades

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at a read-like operation and mentions 'normalized' output, but it does not explain what 'normalized' means, whether trades can be empty or paginated, what fields are returned, or any other behavioral characteristics such as performance or prerequisites.

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 is efficient and easy to parse, though it is arguably too terse to fully guide an agent's decision-making.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It identifies the input and a general return category, but leaves the agent without enough information about the result shape, normalization rules, or edge cases. The presence of several run-related sibling tools makes the missing comparison guidance more significant.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the semantic link 'trades for a run_id', which clarifies that run_id identifies the run whose trades are requested. However, it does not explain the expected format or origin of run_id, nor what counts as a 'trade' in the normalized output.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and a clear resource, 'normalized trades', scoped to a run_id. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_run or compare_runs at a basic level, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_run beyond the word '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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you want normalized trades for a specific run_id. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, how it compares to get_run or compare_runs, or whether it is appropriate for certain run types.

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