Recent trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts: the data is public (no auth implied) and results are ordered newest-first by default, but it says nothing about rate limits, page size behavior, or cursor lifetime.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded, followed by a parenthetical field list and the default ordering. Every clause earns its place and there is 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?

For a 4-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and states the default sort, which compensates for the missing return-value documentation. Pagination semantics are left entirely to the cursor field's schema description, which is the only minor gap.

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 all four parameters (limit, cursor, symbol, direction) are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'newest first by default' reinforces the direction default but adds no format or usage detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Recent public trades in one market') and enumerates the returned fields (price, quantity, taker side, time), which distinguishes it from get_candles/get_orderbook/get_ticker by content. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting scope, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative (get_candles for aggregated OHLCV). The only implicit signal is 'newest first by default', which hints at the direction parameter rather than at tool selection.

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