get_physical_trade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the purpose. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, permission/auth requirements, error behavior for missing trades, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, covering the key identification and filtering behavior. It is efficient, though slightly terse given the missing behavioral context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, but the lack of annotations plus 0% parameter description coverage leaves auth, error, and end_date semantics unaddressed for a 3-parameter tool. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it explains trade_id accepts an "arzehPk id or symbol" and that a date range filters results. However end_date semantics and its null default remain unexplained.

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 verb ("Get") and resource ("one physical trade row") and clarifies it returns a single row identified by id or symbol within a date range. This implicitly contrasts with the plural search_physical_trades sibling, though it never names it explicitly.

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 singular "one ... row" and required id/date-range framing imply this is a point-lookup rather than a bulk search, but the description never states when to prefer it over search_physical_trades or any other sibling. Usage is left to inference.

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