Recent trades (time & sales)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds pagination direction and a market restriction, but the 'Egypt only' claim conflicts with the schema's market enum (egypt/us/uae/simulator), which makes the disclosed scope unreliable.

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?

Two short sentences, scope first then the paging tip. No filler, nothing redundant with the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description does helpfully reference the returned nextCursor. But it omits the trade record shape and leaves the market-scope conflict unresolved, which matters for a tool whose only hard constraint is stated incorrectly.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema already documents `before` (nextCursor) and `market`. The description adds only the paging direction for `before`, which is marginally useful; `limit` semantics (default 50, max 200) are never mentioned.

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+resource ('latest executed trades for an instrument') with the title reinforcing 'time & sales', which clearly separates it from account-scoped siblings like get_closed_trades. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not (e.g. get_closed_trades or get_price_history), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives one concrete usage instruction ('Use `before` with the returned nextCursor to page back') and a scope constraint ('Egypt only'). It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over get_price_history, get_market_depth, or get_closed_trades, so alternatives are left implicit.

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