fomo_get_trade_comments

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. The only behavioral trait disclosed is pagination via lastCommentId. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or mention any constraints like maximum page size or ordering. For a simple get-comments tool, this is minimal but insufficient given zero annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose and pagination mechanism. However, it is under-specified rather than concise in a helpful way—it omits necessary context. A 3 reflects that it is short but not optimally structured for an agent to act reliably.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter descriptions, the definition is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how to handle pagination boundaries, or any side effects. While simple, it lacks essential operational details to be considered adequate.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions lastCommentId as a paging cursor but does not define it further (e.g., format, meaning). tradeId is only implied as the trade identifier, with no elaboration on its purpose or required format. The description adds very little semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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?

Clear verb+resource: retrieves comments for a trade. The phrase 'Comments on a trade' is specific, but it does not differentiate from siblings like fomo_get_trade (which likely returns the trade itself) or fomo_get_trades (list of trades). A 4 is appropriate because it states the core action but lacks distinguishing context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or when to prefer other tools. It relies entirely on the tool name to imply use case, which is inadequate.

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