pro_get_public_trades

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully describes behavior. It indicates a read-only operation (getting trades) and lists return fields (price, amount, side, date). However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. The [PUBLIC] tag hints at accessibility but lacks clarity.

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?

Description is concise with three sentences. The first sentence clearly states the primary purpose, followed by parameter details and a use case. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 3 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose, required input, return fields, and optional parameters. It mentions the response is a list of trades with metadata, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, providing an example for 'pair' and restating defaults for 'limit' and options for 'sort'. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no significant extra meaning is added.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves the latest public trades for a market, specifying the resource (trades) and action (get). Includes example trading pair and return fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the similar sibling 'pro_get_trades', which likely serves a different purpose (e.g., private trades).

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?

Provides basic usage context: requires a trading pair, optional parameters, and states it's useful for seeing recent market activity. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like 'pro_get_trades', which would improve guidance.

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