get_trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, reducing the burden. The description adds that it returns 'recent trade ticks' and a max count, but lacks details on data freshness, pagination, or error handling.

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 concise with three clear parts: purpose, strategy/example, and parameter details. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and low complexity, the description covers the essential behavior: symbol required, count optional with limits. It could mention data scope (e.g., exchange) or error cases, but it's adequate for a simple retrieval 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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'symbol: Security symbol' and 'count: Number of trades (default 100, max 1000)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 'Get recent trade ticks for a symbol,' specifying the verb 'get', the resource 'trade ticks', and the scope 'for a symbol'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_depth (market depth) and get_intraday (intraday bars) by explicitly mentioning tick-level data.

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?

A <strategy> tag advises 'Directly invoke for tick-level trade data,' providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling list.

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