stocks_get_trades_v3

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only conveys the basic read operation. It does not mention differences between v3 and v1, rate limits, pagination, response format, or any other behavioral traits beyond the action.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, but it conveys only minimal information. Still, for what it contains, it is well-structured.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not cover parameter usage, return values, or the difference from the non-v3 sibling, leaving a significant gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 references timestamp but is insufficient to guide an agent on how to specify the range or use the other parameters.

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 operation—getting trades for a stock within a time range—but it does not differentiate this v3 version from the sibling stocks_get_trades. The 'v3 API' label is a version marker, not a functional distinction, so it does not fully distinguish the tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stocks_get_trades or when the time range is applicable. The description simply states what the tool does without explaining usage context or exclusions.

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