recent_trades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it discloses that the tool is paid ($0.025/call over x402), the accepted payment rails, that no key or sign-up is needed, and — critically — that over MCP it returns the price and URL rather than the data. That last point is a behavioral trait an agent absolutely needs and could not infer elsewhere.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then routing alternatives, then the payment caveat. No filler; each sentence carries distinct, necessary information.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a low-coverage input schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide and call: scope, ordering, alternatives, cost, and the surprising MCP return-value caveat. Nothing material is missing.

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 compensate. It does clarify that 'mint' accepts a symbol as well as a mint address and reiterates the 100 cap, but it never explains the 'limit' default (20) or pagination semantics. Partial compensation for an undocumented two-parameter schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('latest on-chain trades of ONE X1 token'), the ordering ('newest first'), the key format ('mint or symbol') and the cap ('up to 100'). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the whale_ticker and firehose siblings, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Names two alternatives with the exact conditions that select them: whale_ticker for whale-sized swaps across every token, firehose for the last 200 trades chain-wide. This is explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance rather than implied context.

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