crypto_get_trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention defaults (limit=5000), how 'time range' is interpreted (e.g., via timestamp), pagination, response format, or any limitations. This leaves the agent guessing about expected behavior.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. There is no verbosity or redundancy. However, its brevity contributes to under-specification, though that is penalized in other dimensions.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the behavior of the trade list, how time range works, or what a caller should expect. It is only minimally complete enough to alert the agent to the tool's existence.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (sort, limit, order, symbol, timestamp). The phrase 'time range' vaguely hints at timestamp but does not clarify the role of other parameters. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('trades for a crypto pair') with a scope ('in a time range'). It is not a tautology and clearly communicates the primary function. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling crypto_get_historic_trades, which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like crypto_get_historic_trades or crypto_get_last_trade, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does without contextualizing its usage.

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