get_trade

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

The description provides extensive details about the return payload, including field semantics (e.g., decimal strings, positive/negative units), trade states, and closed-trade fields. It also notes the account context. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, though it does not address error handling or rate limits.

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 moderately long but each sentence provides meaningful details about the output structure and field types. It is well-organized, with the main purpose front-loaded and subsequent information presented as a clear list.

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 single-trade retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers the return format, key fields, state values, and special cases like closed trades, making it sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 fully describes the trade_specifier parameter with an example and format. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level details, so it matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 retrieves a single trade's details, distinguishing it from list_trades/list_open_trades by explicitly specifying 'single trade'. The verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a single trade' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description focuses on the operation and return format rather than providing context on selecting it over list_trades or list_open_trades. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the phrase 'single trade'.

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