Recent trades

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: results are newest-first, may be delayed or wrong, and are public read-only data.

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 short and front-loaded, with the key purpose, return fields, optional range, and data caveat stated efficiently. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is largely complete: it names the returned fields and warns about data freshness. The main remaining gap is lack of sibling differentiation for similar market-data tools.

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%, so parameters such as pool format, limit, and timestamp units are already documented. The description reinforces the optional time range and returned fields but does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 resource and scope: "Most recent fills in a DeepBook pool (newest first)" and lists the returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_bm_fills or get_ohlcv.

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 notes an optional time range, implying you can bound the query, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives like get_bm_fills, get_order_book, or get_ohlcv.

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