Recent trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context by disclosing that results include a derived taker-flow summary (buy vs sell volume, largest trade), which is not visible from the schema. It says nothing about recency window, pagination, or whether trades are real-time, so it stops short of rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes first and the distinguishing return-value detail follows. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only query with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the shape of the response summary, which is enough to call it. However, two of three parameters carry no explanation anywhere, and the recency/ordering semantics of 'most recent' are undefined, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is only 33% — symbol is documented in the schema (with a pointer to strike_list_markets), but limit (default 200, max 1000) and include_trades (default 20, max 100) are undocumented. The description mentions a trade summary but never explains how limit vs include_trades differ or what they control, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("most recent public trades in a market") plus the added value of a taker-flow summary. An agent can tell it apart from strike_get_orderbook or strike_get_candles by the 'executed trades with buy/sell volume' framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'recent trades in a market' suggests a post-trade flow lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as the orderbook (resting liquidity) or candles (aggregated OHLC). The agent must infer the distinction from the sibling names.

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