Get Rfq Trades

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the result ordering (newest first), anonymity of the fills, eventual visibility of history, the existence of late-arriving records requiring overlapping windows, a dedupe key (tradeId), and that later corrections and busts do not amend these prints. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs to consume the data correctly and cannot be inferred from readOnly/idempotent hints.

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?

Sentences are short, front-loaded with the core 'what' before pagination and consistency caveats. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler or restatement of the title.

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 paginated read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, ordering, anonymity, pagination lifecycle, and data-consistency caveats (late arrivals, dedupe, busts). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the results without further inference.

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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, and the description adds a genuinely new rule the schema lacks: an empty cursor terminates the traversal. The instruction to repeat identical filters and limit with each cursor reinforces the schema's opaque-continuation note and clarifies that cursor state is bound to the filter set. It does not add anything about startTime/endTime semantics that the schema doesn't already carry.

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 verb 'Returns' pairs with a precisely scoped resource: anonymous original fills where either order originated from an RFQ, newest first, including single instruments, combos, and later fills on resting orders. That is far more specific than the tool name alone. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. get_activities, get_quotes) to contrast against, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being routed.

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?

Strong operational guidance is present: reuse the same filters and limit with each cursor, stop on an empty cursor, and requery overlapping time windows to catch late arrivals. However, none of this addresses when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_quotes or get_activities; the selection guidance is only implied by the 'RFQ origin' scoping.

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