get_rfq_public_trades

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The agent has no insight beyond the name.

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 extremely concise, comprising two sentences. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and parameter information without unnecessary text.

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 lacks an output schema and does not explain return format. Given the large number of sibling tools with similar names (e.g., get_rfq_list, get_rfq_trade_list), more context about what data is returned would be necessary for correct selection.

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 description adds meaning to the 'limit' parameter by stating it is 'Number of records' and noting the default of 50, which goes beyond the schema that only defines type and default. With 0% schema coverage, this provides essential info.

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 states 'Get RFQ public trades' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It is specific enough to distinguish from many sibling tools, though it could clarify what constitutes an 'RFQ public trade' versus other RFQ endpoints.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_rfq_trade_list or get_rfq_realtime. There is no mention of context or exclusions.

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