getPublicTrades

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the data is publicly available and anonymized, authentication via API key headers is required, the time window must not exceed 30 days, and the rate limit is 50 requests per second. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 definition is reasonably compact and front-loads the core purpose. However, the 'Agent hint' largely repeats the first paragraph, duplicating the 'public (anonymized) RFQ trade data' phrasing and the 30-day time window. This redundancy adds length without adding new information.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation requirements: purpose, filtering, pagination, authentication, rate limiting, and the time-window restriction. It is incomplete, though, in that it omits the time unit for the integer timestamps and provides no guidance on the response format or how the pagination cursor is obtained.

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 needs to compensate. It does add meaning by explaining the 30-day constraint on startTime/endTime and mentioning cursor-based pagination. However, it does not specify the expected time unit (seconds vs milliseconds), the meaning of the cursor beyond pagination, or how limit interacts with pagination.

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's function: 'Query publicly available RFQ trade data' with time filtering and pagination. This is a specific verb plus resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling getRecentPublicTrades, which appears to serve a similar public-trade use case.

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 context by describing a public RFQ trade query with optional time filtering and pagination. It also gives operational requirements such as API key authentication, a 50 requests per second rate limit, and the 30-day time window constraint. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over similar siblings like getRecentPublicTrades or subscribeRfqPublicTrades.

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