get_recent_trades

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds two genuinely new behavioral facts: results are ordered newest-first, and there is no pagination past the 50-record window. That is meaningful context an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Two short Korean sentences with zero filler. The core action and limit come first, and the no-pagination caveat follows immediately, so it is well front-loaded and fully earns its length.

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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers scope, ordering, and the pagination boundary, which is enough to call it correctly. The one gap is that, with no output schema, the agent is not told what fields a trade record contains, so the description is not quite fully complete.

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%: both 'symbol' (with domestic 6-digit code and US ticker examples) and 'count' (max 50) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the 50-record ceiling and adds no format or syntax detail beyond it. 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the day's recent trade executions (체결 내역) for a symbol, newest first, capped at 50. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as get_candles, get_prices, and get_orderbook. It stops short of naming any sibling directly, so this is a 4 rather than 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 sentence '이보다 과거로 넘기는 페이지는 없다' effectively tells the agent not to attempt paging further back, which is useful exclusion guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_candles or get_prices for historical or aggregated data, so usage is only implied.

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