Get recent trades

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds no behavioral details such as data freshness, limit behavior, or return format. It merely restates the tool's purpose without disclosing side effects, dependencies, or formatting specifics. Since annotations already indicate a safe read operation, the description should add context but doesn't.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is free of filler and conveys the essential purpose efficiently.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of executions with price/time) and note that 'count' is an optional limit. It does neither, leaving the agent to infer response structure and behavior from the tool name alone. Annotations cover safety but not functional completeness.

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?

The schema already provides a detailed description for 'symbol' (Korean code or US ticker) and a resolution hint. The tool description only echoes this without adding new information about the 'count' parameter, whose meaning is only implied. With 50% schema coverage, the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented 'count' parameter, but 'count' is fairly self-explanatory.

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 what the tool does: it returns recent executions (trades) for a Korean stock code or US ticker. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like toss_get_price (current price), toss_get_candles (historical candles), and toss_get_orders (order status).

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 use the tool—when you need recent executions—and the schema adds a useful hint to call toss_resolve_symbol if only a company name is known. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or explain when not to use this tool, missing the top tier of guidance.

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