getRecentPublicTrades

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: no authentication required, supported product categories, per-category record limits (1000, with 60 for spot), reverse chronological ordering, and category-specific symbol/baseCoin requirements. It does not mention rate limits or potential default limit behavior, but the coverage is strong and consistent with the annotations.

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 front-loaded with an accurate first sentence, but it repeats itself substantially. The 'Notes' section and the 'Agent hint' mostly duplicate content already stated earlier, such as symbol being required and baseCoin defaulting to BTC. Every sentence does not earn its place, making the description noticeably bloated.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the return fields, specifies auth requirements, product support, record ordering, and category-specific constraints. It falls short only in omitting optionType semantics and any default limit behavior, but overall an agent has enough context to call this tool correctly in most cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining category semantics, symbol requirements for spot/linear/inverse, baseCoin defaulting to BTC for option, and the practical impact of limit (up to 1000, 60 for spot). However, optionType is never explained, and the limit parameter is only implied rather than explicitly tied to the schema field.

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 verb and resource: 'Query recent public trading history for a symbol' and lists the returned fields (price, size, taker direction, timestamp, sequence). However, there is a closely named sibling, getPublicTrades, and the description never explains how this tool differs from it, so the agent still faces ambiguity around which sibling to pick.

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 gives an explicit 'Use this endpoint when you need to' list and strongly worded 'Do not use' directives with named alternatives (getTickers, getOrderbook). The main gap is that it does not address the most similar alternative, getPublicTrades, leaving the when-to-use distinction between those two unclear.

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