Get Crypto Trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, so the safe-read nature is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context: automatic start computation from lookback parameters when start is omitted, inclusive time ranges, limit across all symbols, and default values. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief note on start behavior, then a clear bullet-like arg list. Each parameter has a concise explanation without unnecessary elaboration. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, 1 required, no schema descriptions, and an output schema present, the description covers all functional aspects: how to specify symbols, time range options, lookback logic, limit constraints, and sort behavior. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists, and it provides enough context 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%, so the description must fully explain all 8 parameters, and it does. It provides meaning, defaults, examples, and conditional behavior for each parameter (e.g., symbols format, start/end inclusivity, lookback combination, limit range, sort order). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 and resource: "Retrieve historical trade data for one or more cryptocurrencies." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_latest_trade (latest trade), get_crypto_bars (OHLC bars), and get_crypto_quotes (quotes). The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 historical trade data and provides detailed parameter semantics, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the selection decision to inference from the tool name and sibling list.

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