get_recent_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'recent' scope and the limit range, but it doesn't state whether the data is real-time, how recent 'recent' is, if there's pagination, or what the response structure looks like. For a data-fetching tool without annotations, this is minimal disclosure.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and key parameter constraint. It earns its place with no fluff, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the limit info, but it's appropriately brief.

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 there are no annotations, no output schema, and a low schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what 'recent' means, whether the data is aggregated or individual trades, or how it differs from get_price or get_depth. An agent calling this would lack critical context about the response and edge cases.

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 description covers the limit parameter's range and default, which adds value beyond the schema's default=100 (by adding the allowed range 10-500). However, the symbol parameter is not described beyond the schema's type and required status. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Recent public trades for a symbol.' It indicates the tool retrieves recent trades, which is distinct from siblings like get_price or get_ticker_24h. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other trade-related tools (none exist in the sibling list), so it's clear but not explicitly contrasted.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, use cases, or exclusions. For instance, it doesn't clarify if this is for public market data only or if it's the right tool for historical trades versus recent ones. With many sibling market data tools, usage guidance is lacking.

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