Trader Trades

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

With annotations already declaring readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds real behavioral value: it discloses the trade-history indexing start (2025-03-22), points to pulse_global_stats.dataStartDate and data_coverage for the current window, and frames results as activity 'in the last minutes/hours'. That coverage caveat is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds purpose and coverage caveats in two compact sentences with no filler. The data-coverage sentence is slightly dense but earns its place by preventing misleading empty results.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields (buy/sell, size, price, PnL) and the indexing cutoff that governs completeness of results. For a read-only, single-required-param tool this covers the main gaps; a note on pagination/limit behavior would make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines address, coin, limit, since, and useToonFormat with formats and defaults. The description paraphrases the time-window behavior ('last minutes/hours') but adds no format semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get recent trades') plus scope ('for a specific wallet address'), and the follow-up sentence enumerates what is returned (buy, sell, size, price, PnL). It is clearly distinguishable from global siblings like pulse_recent_trades by the wallet scoping, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Offers two use-case hints ('essential for copy-trading and due diligence') but never states when to prefer this over siblings such as pulse_recent_trades, pulse_biggest_trades, or pulse_trader_daily_stats, and lists no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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