search_futures_trades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, and no auth or scope constraints. The output schema covers return shape, but the agent still cannot infer result-size or ordering behavior.

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 padding, which is structurally fine. Its brevity is under-specification rather than economy, so it cannot earn more than a middling score.

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?

For a 6-parameter filtered search with no annotations, one required parameter, and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but it still omits filtering and pagination semantics the agent needs to call it well.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it only gestures at 'a date range', loosely covering start_date and end_date. The symbol filter, only_active flag, and the limit/offset pagination controls are entirely unexplained anywhere.

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 pairs a clear verb ('Search') with a resource ('futures market statistics'), which is enough to distinguish it from the physical/option/salaf trade siblings by asset class. However, it never names those alternatives, and the noun 'statistics' sits awkwardly against the tool name's 'trades', leaving ambiguity about what is actually returned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the twelve sibling search_* tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated. The only implied usage is the existence of a date range.

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