queryTrade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context on top: at least one identifier must be provided, and the returned information includes status, exchange rate, conversion amounts, timestamp, and user ID. It doesn't discuss error cases or rate limits, but for a simple read-only query this is adequate.

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-organized with bold section headers and bullet lists. It is concise, front-loads the core purpose, and every section—query options, returned information, use cases—earns its place with no filler.

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?

Since there is no output schema, listing the returned information is essential and the description does so. It also covers use cases and the at-least-one-parameter requirement. Minor ambiguity about which identifier takes precedence if both are provided is a small gap, but overall the description is nearly complete for a simple query tool.

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?

The input schema only lists tradeNo and merchantRequestId as strings with no descriptions and no required flag, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that tradeNo is system-generated, merchantRequestId is a custom merchant request ID, and at least one must be provided. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though formats and precedence when both are supplied are not covered.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'query detailed information and status of a specified trade.' It clearly identifies the tool's core purpose and lists query options and returned fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like queryTradeHistory or getTradeHistory, so it falls short of a 5.

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 concrete use cases: polling status after submission, reconciling with merchantRequestId, and displaying trade details. It also states the 'at least one parameter' constraint. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly explain when not to use this tool, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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