fomo_get_trades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is a filterable trade lookup, but does not mention pagination, sort direction, date ranges, output shape, or whether no parameters returns all trades. 'Filterable' is the only behavioral hint.

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 and front-loads the key filters with no wasted words. It sacrifices clarity for brevity, especially around 'close order', but it earns its place as a compact summary.

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?

This is a simple list tool with no output schema, no annotations, and all optional parameters, but the description still leaves important gaps: no default behavior, no return-value information, and no indication of how the filters interact. It is enough to recognize the tool, but not enough to invoke it confidently in a complex decision.

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 needed to compensate by explaining the parameters. It maps userId to 'user' and tokenAddress to 'token' fairly clearly, but 'close order' for orderBy is ambiguous: it could mean sorting criteria, closed order status, or a specific field value. The description does not resolve what orderBy values look like.

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 names the resource (trades) and the three filter dimensions (user, close order, token), which matches the tool's name and distinguishes it from the singular fomo_get_trade. It is not a tautology, though it could be more specific about what kind of trades and what the response represents.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus nearby alternatives like fomo_get_trade, fomo_trading_activity, or fomo_get_user_swaps. The phrase 'filterable by user, close order and token' implies a search/list use case, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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