getTrades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it queries today's trades and belongs to the MARKET_DATA rate limit group, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like return format, ordering, or pagination behavior. With strong annotations, the description provides modest added value.

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: a title, one explanatory sentence, and metadata (rate limits, endpoint, tags). Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter with nested object, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details about return structure, ordering of trades, or error handling. It doesn't clarify the distinction from similar market data tools. More context would improve agent understanding.

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 coverage is 100% as both parameters (symbol, count) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 it queries recent trade history ('최근 체결 내역 조회') and specifies it's for today ('당일'). This verb+resource combination is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getCandles or getOrderbook.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or contrast with sibling tools. The only context is the rate limits group, which is not enough to guide selection.

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