get_trade_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the breadth of returned data (pre-trade notes through risk metrics), implicitly signaling a read-only deep fetch, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior when the ID is unknown.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the example questions are compact and illustrative rather than filler. Slightly verbose overall, but every line contributes routing value.

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 no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the returned sections. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, missing only failure/empty 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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself noting it is a UUID. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get ... details of a single trade by ID') and the scope ('complete, deep details'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list tool get_trades. The enumerated content areas (notes, management, review, lessons, MAE/MFE, risk metrics) make the resource 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?

The example questions give concrete context for when this tool is the right choice ('Walk me through my worst trade'), which grounds usage well. However, it never names alternatives such as get_trades for lists or get_trade_screenshots for screenshots, so no explicit when-not guidance is present.

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