dzengi_list_trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is clear. The description adds only 'bounded' as behavioral context, which likely refers to the limit parameter, but it doesn't describe pagination, return format, or error behavior. The added value over annotations is minimal.

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, compact sentence that conveys the core action without fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse, even if it lacks depth.

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 4 parameters, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent lacks essential details about parameter semantics, constraints (e.g., startTime < endTime), and expected response. The read-only annotation covers safety, but not the operational details needed to call the tool correctly.

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 provides no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the tool description must carry the burden. It mentions 'symbol' and 'optional time filters', which likely map to startTime and endTime, but doesn't explain limit, the meaning of 'bounded', or time formats (e.g., milliseconds since epoch). This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct calls.

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 it reads user trades for a single symbol with optional time filters, which is specific and distinguishes it from position-related tools like dzengi_list_positions and order-related ones. However, 'signed' is ambiguous, and it could better differentiate from dzengi_list_position_history, which might overlap in concept.

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 implies usage for fetching trades with symbol and time constraints, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like dzengi_list_positions or dzengi_list_position_history. There are no exclusions or explicit conditions that an agent can rely on to decide between siblings.

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