options_get_trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it only states a read operation. It does not mention pagination, sorting, filtering, return format, or any rate limiting, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise, though this conciseness compromises completeness. It earns its place by clearly naming the action, but the lack of detail is a trade-off.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool is severely under-specified. The description does not explain how trades are returned, how limit or sort affect results, or what the timestamp parameter does. It is not complete enough for an agent to use confidently.

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 parameter explanations. It mentions 'option contract' but does not map to the required 'option_symbol' parameter or describe the optional sort, limit, order, or timestamp fields. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's bare type names.

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 states the tool retrieves trades for an option contract, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trades'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like options_get_last_trade, the plural 'trades' and the inclusion of 'option contract' provide sufficient clarity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no context about how this differs from options_get_last_trade or options_get_quotes, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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