Show Trade

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds endpoint and verb (GET), but does not mention pagination behavior despite page/per_page parameters. Does not contradict 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?

Three sentences covering purpose, usage, required params, and API reference. Some redundancy between first two sentences, but overall efficient and front-loaded.

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 GET endpoint with annotations, the description covers core purpose and required params. However, it omits explanation of optional pagination parameters and does not clarify the relationship between Trade and Company Settings. An output schema would have helped, but none exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description repeats required parameters but adds no additional semantics beyond what schema already provides. No enum or nested object complexity.

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?

Description clearly states it returns details for a specified Trade, with a specific verb+resource. However, it confusingly equates a Trade with Company Settings, which may cause misinterpretation. It does not differentiate from other show_* sibling tools but is sufficiently unique.

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?

Implied usage: use when you have company_id and trade id. No explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Lacks context for distinguishing from similar tools.

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