get_trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context by specifying that it returns the most recent trades for the current day ('당일 최근'), but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral details. This adds some value beyond the annotations but does not fully elaborate.

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 brief and well-structured, with a single clear purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list. Every word is useful, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description, combined with the annotations and output schema, gives a fairly complete picture for a simple read-only tool. It covers purpose and parameters adequately, and the output schema handles return values. The only notable gap is the lack of usage differentiation from sibling tools, but the tool's simplicity makes this a minor omission.

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 has no descriptions for the parameters, so the Args section in the description is essential. It explains that 'symbol' is the security symbol and 'count' ranges from 1 to 50 with a default of 20, providing meaning beyond the schema's type and default fields. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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 states a specific action ('조회한다' - retrieves) and resource ('당일 최근 체결 내역' - today's recent trade executions) for a given symbol. This clearly conveys the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like get_orderbook or get_candles, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_orderbook or get_price. It only states what the tool does, with no contextual hints about when it is the appropriate choice, lacking exclusions or prerequisites.

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