get_orderbook_trades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses the verb 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety or side effects. It also does not clarify what 'recent' means, whether results are sorted, or any rate limits or auth requirements, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is concise and well-structured, earning a top score for efficiency.

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 (3 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It fails to mention return format, ordering, or how 'recent' is determined. The lack of any behavioral context, especially given the many sibling tools, leaves gaps that could lead to incorrect selection or invocation.

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 each parameter ('first', 'maker', 'taker') individually described in the input schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter information, but since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline score 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 'Get recent order fills from the Orderbook subgraph' clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('recent order fills'), and the source ('Orderbook subgraph'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_subgraph (generic) and get_live_orderbook (real-time order book, not trades), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 such as query_subgraph, get_recent_activity, or get_last_trade. There is no mention of appropriate use cases, exclusions, or trade-offs, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.

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