Trades

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: results are newest-first, capped at 500 rows, and each row carries side, px, sz, time, coin, hash, and users. The example also clarifies parameter usage, which adds value over annotations alone.

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 dense sentence followed by a clear example. It front-loads the core action and then lists output fields and constraints without unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 small parameter count, annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It covers ordering, maximum row count, output fields, and parameter usage through the example, so an agent has enough information to select and correctly call the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does so by showing coin as the required base asset (example 'BTC') and limit as controlling row count, including a concrete call example. It does not deeply explain coin format or edge cases, but it provides enough for correct invocation.

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 identifies the tool's action as retrieving 'Recent public fills from recentTrades(coin)' and specifies the exact data fields included. It distinguishes itself from likely siblings by emphasizing 'both sides' addresses' and 'users [maker, taker]', which is unique among the listed tools.

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 the tool: for recent public trades with maker/taker address details, newest-first, up to 500 rows. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the sibling list and clear output scope provide sufficient context.

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