get_last_trade

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies 'most recent trade' which clarifies scope, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but limited behavioral detail.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, 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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only, with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It states what the tool does, though it could benefit from more context on usage versus siblings. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the need for detailed output explanation in the description.

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 0%, but there's only one parameter ('ticker'). The description mentions 'ticker symbol,' which aligns with the parameter name but doesn't add semantic details like format examples or constraints. Since parameter count is low (1) and the schema lacks descriptions, the baseline is 3—adequate but with room for improvement.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the most recent trade for a ticker symbol.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('most recent trade'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_last_quote' or 'list_trades', which could provide similar data.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_last_quote', 'list_trades'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from others in the context.

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