get_multi_trades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the consolidating behavior and multi-exchange scope, but lacks detail on return format, ordering, approximation behavior, or potential errors. As a read-only 'Get' tool, the safety is implicit, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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?

While the description is clear, it lacks an explicit statement about return value structure (no output schema), how 'consolidated' is achieved, or how filters interact across exchanges. Combined with the schema, it is minimally adequate but leaves operational uncertainty.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a resource 'consolidated trade data' and explicitly scopes it 'across multiple exchanges', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_trades which likely handles single-exchange trades.

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 usage for retrieving trade data from multiple exchanges at once, but does not explicitly state when to use it over get_trades or provide any exclusions. The differentiation is only implicit via the phrase 'across multiple exchanges'.

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