List Trade Intents

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., side effects, errors), but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous words. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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 simple list operation, the description provides the core intent but lacks contextual details such as the output format, pagination behavior, or relationship to other list operations. It is minimally adequate but not richly contextual.

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 schema has two parameters (limit and status) with no per-parameter descriptions. The description mentions only 'status' filtering, leaving 'limit' unexplained and the allowed values or format of status unspecified. Parameter coverage is incomplete.

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 the action (list), the resource (trade intents), and specific modifiers (recent, persisted) along with an optional filter (status). This uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like create_trade_intent and get_trade_intent.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is clear as a listing operation, there is no mention of when to prefer it over get_trade_intent or list_open_orders, nor any indication of constraints or prerequisites.

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