get_rfq_trade_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the parameters and defaults, but does not explain what 'trade history' entails (e.g., whether it returns all trades, pagination, ordering, or any side effects). The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 concise at three lines, with the purpose stated upfront. It avoids unnecessary words, but the structure could be improved by using bullet points or clearer separation. Overall, it is efficient but slightly too terse.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return data, pagination, or rate limits. It only covers the purpose and parameters, leaving the agent without key information needed for correct usage. The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete.

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 input schema has 2 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that rfq_id is an optional filter and limit is a count defaulting to 50. This goes beyond the raw schema, making the parameters understandable. However, it could be more detailed (e.g., specifying valid rfq_id format or limit constraints).

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 trade history' which clearly defines the action and resource. Among siblings like get_rfq_list, get_rfq_quote_list, and get_rfq_public_trades, this tool is distinct by focusing on trade history. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar tools, which is a minor gap.

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 such as get_rfq_list or get_rfq_public_trades. No context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions is given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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