getSpreadRecentTrades

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: no authentication required, returns up to 1000 records, reverse chronological ordering, and the specific fields returned including the `seq` cross sequence number. There is no contradiction with 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 well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose, but it contains notable redundancy: 'Records are returned most recent first' appears in both the main text and the Notes, and the Agent hint largely repeats the usage guidance and exclusions already stated above. It could be tightened without losing 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 simple two-parameter public-data endpoint with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, use cases, exclusions, authentication, result count, ordering, and key fields. The agent has enough context to select the tool, invoke it correctly, and interpret the response shape.

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 compensate. It does so by stating that symbol is required and suggesting getSpreadInstrumentsInfo as a source for valid symbols. The limit parameter is not explicitly explained, but the schema provides default, minimum, and maximum, and the description clarifies the 1000-record cap and sorting order.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query recent public spread trading history for a specific spread combination symbol.' It clearly identifies the tool as a public trade execution history reader and distinguishes it from related market data tools like getSpreadTickers and getSpreadOrderbook by explicitly naming what they are for.

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 provides explicit when-to-use bullet points and explicit exclusions: 'Do not use this endpoint for current best bid/ask or 24h stats — use getSpreadTickers instead' and 'Do not use this endpoint for order book depth — use getSpreadOrderbook instead.' This directly routes an agent to the correct alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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