data_get_trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the side effect: 'Auto-opens Strategy Tester and unhides the selected strategy.' This is valuable transparency for a tool that might otherwise appear purely read-only. It does not disclose any other potential side effects or permission requirements, but it covers the most significant behavior.

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, consisting of two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence adds essential information: what the tool does, when to pass entity_id, and the side effect. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with no output schema, and the description covers the main function and a key side effect. However, it does not specify prerequisites like whether at least one strategy must be loaded, or what happens if no strategy is available. This is a minor gap but not critical for understanding the tool's primary use.

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%, meaning the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., the schema already says entity_id is 'Strongly recommended when more than one strategy is loaded'). Thus, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the most recent strategy orders.' The verb 'get' and resource 'strategy orders' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like data_get_strategy_results. The additional detail about opening the Strategy Tester further differentiates it.

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 description provides clear context for when to pass entity_id: 'Pass entity_id when more than one strategy is loaded.' This is helpful usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be used over alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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