Trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the futures endpoint requires no key, is 'fresh,' and the spot path may return 'an honest error dict' if dead. This goes beyond what the annotations convey, though it doesn't address rate limits or response ordering.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Recent trades'). The example is efficient and adds clarity. The phrase 'probed live in smoke' is slightly tangential but contributes to transparency. No redundant wording, so the length is appropriate.

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 that an output schema exists, return values need no description. The annotations cover safety. Still, a caller might be uncertain about the exact valid values for `venue` (e.g., 'futures' vs 'spot') and whether the error dict behavior applies only to spot. The description is adequate for selection but not fully complete for invocation without schema inspection.

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 stated as 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. The example `trades(symbol="BTCUSDT", limit=10)` covers symbol and limit usage, and the text distinguishes futures vs spot, indirectly hinting at the venue parameter. However, limit semantics, the default of 20, and valid venue values are not explicitly explained, so compensation for the schema gap is only partial.

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 opens with 'Recent trades,' which clearly identifies the resource and operation. It also distinguishes the futures endpoint from the spot path, helping separate it from sibling tools like order_book or klines. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit imperative verb like 'get' or 'fetch,' so it is not quite a 5.

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 when to use this tool (when recent trades are needed) and gives context that the futures endpoint is 'keyless and fresh' while the spot path was uncertain. It does not name alternative tools like klines or order_book, nor does it explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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