get_trade

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

No annotations at all, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it discloses scope of returned data but never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup or what happens on a missing id. The enumeration of returned fields adds genuine context, but key operational traits are left implicit.

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; every listed item earns its place by telling the agent what payload to expect.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't document return structure, and it still gives a useful content preview. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read, missing only explicit read-only framing and not-found 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for trade_id, so the description must compensate; it only implies the parameter by saying 'one trade'. The meaning of trade_id is obvious enough in context but never spelled out (format, where to obtain 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Full detail of one trade') and enumerates the exact content returned (prices, costs, R, MFE/MAE, deals, journal, behaviour flags). It is clearly a single-record fetch, implicitly distinct from find_trades, though no sibling is named.

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?

'One trade' implies you already have an identifier rather than searching, which is a reasonable usage signal. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs find_trades guidance, no preconditions, and no statement about behaviour when the id is invalid.

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