tenero_wallet_trades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: no authentication required and that results are "recent" buy/sell events (an implicit recency cap). It says nothing about pagination behavior, history depth, rate limits, or whether chains other than stacks are actually supported.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return contents, with no padding in the main body. The trailing earnings "Tip" is affiliate-style filler that doesn't help an agent decide or invoke.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by naming the returned fields and the data source. Gaps remain around the `chain` parameter's meaning, how far back "recent" goes, and how `limit` interacts with the result set.

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 the three parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter detail and is slightly out of step with the schema, since it frames the tool as Stacks-only while a `chain` parameter accepts stacks, spark, or sportsfun.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get trade history for a Stacks wallet address") and states the returned fields (token, pool, USD value). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like tenero_wallet_holdings or tenero_whale_trades, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the other Tenero wallet/whale tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only directive is a cross-sell "Tip" pointing at earning_opportunities, which is next-step advice rather than tool-selection guidance.

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