data_get_trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it discloses material side effects: 'Auto-opens the panel and auto-unhides a hidden strategy.' This tells the agent the call mutates UI state beyond simply reading data, which is valuable. It does not disclose all potential side effects (e.g., requiring the panel to be available), but the main ones are surfaced.

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 two short sentences, both informative. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the behavioral caveat is succinctly added in the second. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the source of the trades and the notable side effects. It is slightly incomplete because it does not describe what the returned trade list contains, but the absence of an output schema makes this less critical for invocation.

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% for the sole parameter max_trades, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about max_trades beyond the schema, but the schema already fully documents it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get trade list from Strategy Tester.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from other data_get_* siblings like data_get_strategy_results or data_get_equity. The additional side-effect mention further characterizes the tool.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as data_get_strategy_results or data_get_equity. The phrase 'from Strategy Tester' hints at context, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names are provided. The side-effect note about opening the panel is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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