subscribe_user_trades

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement, the trigger events (orders matched, trades executed), and optional market filtering. It does not describe subscription lifecycle, delivery semantics beyond callback_type, or how to unsubscribe, but the core stateful behavior is transparent enough for initial selection.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the event condition, authentication requirement, and optional filtering. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no-output-schema, zero-required-parameter subscription tool, this is largely complete: it covers purpose, trigger events, auth, and optional filtering. It omits how the stream is delivered and how to stop the subscription, but the sibling unsubscribe_realtime partially covers the lifecycle and the callback_type parameter hints at delivery.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description weakly reinforces market_ids ('Optionally filter by specific markets') but adds nothing about callback_type. Since both parameters are already well described in the schema, the description provides no meaningful additional semantic value.

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 ('Subscribe to real-time updates for user's trades') and then clarifies the event scope ('when orders are matched and trades execute'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like subscribe_market_prices and subscribe_user_orders, which target different data streams.

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 clear contextual signals: it is for real-time trade execution notifications, requires authentication, and can be scoped by market. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but in the context of sibling subscribe tools the intended use case is reasonably evident.

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