pulse_cohort_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'recently' and 'real-time alpha' but does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, data freshness, pagination behavior, or whether the tool is read-only. A mutation or heavy query with no behavioral cues increases risk for the agent.

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 very short (two sentences plus an example) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence contributes (purpose, example, value proposition). It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but the conciseness is effective.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or default behavior of `useToonFormat`. The example helps but leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely illustrates usage with an example. This is adequate but does not exceed the schema's contribution.

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 explicitly states the action ("See every trade") and the resource ("a specific cohort has made recently"), and provides a concrete example with 'apex (Apex) tier' and 'last hour'. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like `pulse_cohort_summary` (summary stats) and `pulse_cohort_positions` (positions).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `pulse_trader_trades` for individual traders, `pulse_recent_trades` for all trades). There is no mention of when NOT to use it, or scenarios where a different cohort tool would be more appropriate.

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