get_recent_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get the most recent public trades', which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool selection.

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 low complexity (simple read operation with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context like rate limits or authentication needs, which could be important for a trading API tool.

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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('symbol' and 'limit'), including defaults and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenhanced coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('most recent public trades for a symbol'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_trade_history' or 'get_ticker', which could cause confusion about when to use each one.

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 like 'get_trade_history' or 'get_order_history'. It mentions 'public trades', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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