usdc_get_pending_trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious operational constraint — do not resubmit while a trade is pending — which is the main reason to call it. It does not mention the auth material (apiKey/session key via accountRef) or what the response contains when nothing is pending.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, and the safety rule is stated after the one-line purpose in the right order. Every clause is actionable.

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?

For a read-only, single-required-param query with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is close to sufficient: purpose and the safety rule are covered. A brief note on what an empty result means (no pending trades, safe to proceed) would close the remaining gap.

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%, including the chainId enumeration and the accountRef indirection, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only implies chain scoping ('on a chain') and adds nothing about chainId, accountRef, or why apiKey/sessionPrivateKey are optional.

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 resource and scope: pending USDC trades on a given chain. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not name or distinguish itself from near-siblings like usdc_get_deferred_trade, usdc_wait_for_trade, or usdc_get_bridge_orders, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('check before resubmitting any trade whose outcome is unknown') and an explicit prohibition ('never resubmit while one is pending'), which is strong decision guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use when the check should be skipped or when a trade is confirmed pending and needs waiting.

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