Get Recent Trades

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as the absence of trade IDs, clamping behavior, bond pricing in % of face value, and hour-by-hour fetching. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 relatively lengthy but all sentences add value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then covers important details. A minor reduction could be made without losing essential information.

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?

Given the number of parameters, backend constraints, and file output feature, the description covers most aspects: date restrictions, limit behavior, outputPath semantics, and bonds pricing. It lacks an explicit mention of inline return structure but the summary and sample are implied.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining nuances: from clamping, limit ignored with outputPath, outputPath behavior, classCode resolution via find_instrument, and outputFormat details. This goes beyond mere schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as an anonymized recent trades feed for a single instrument, specifying the verb ('get') and resource ('recent trades') and enumerating the data fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_trades by mentioning 'anonymized' and focusing on recent trades.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use and important constraints: the API serves only current UTC day, hour-by-hour fetching, backend caps, and the effect of outputPath. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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