get_order_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get trades' but doesn't describe what 'trades' entails (e.g., format, pagination, error handling), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'trades' returns, potential errors, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond the basic parameter.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'order_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('Get trades') and the target resource ('for a specific order'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling 'get_trades' tool, which appears to be a more general trades retrieval tool, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when-not scenarios or explicit alternatives like 'get_trades' (a sibling tool) or 'get_order_history' (another sibling that might overlap). The context is implied but not articulated.

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