trade_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the generic content (order book depth and trade info) but does not mention whether data is real-time, historical, paginated, or any special constraints. This is minimal disclosure beyond what the name implies.

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 a single, succinct sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous detail. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, making it highly concise.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a high-level purpose but lacks details about the return format, data granularity, or specifics of the trade information. It is adequate for basic selection but not thorough enough for full invocation confidence.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify the 'symbol' parameter. It only repeats that the data is 'for a symbol,' not adding format, examples, or permissible values. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description offers no additional value beyond the schema's title.

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 'Order book depth and trade information for a symbol' clearly states the tool's purpose and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like stock_quote or chart_data by specifying the data type (order book depth and trades), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb is implied rather than explicit, but the intent is 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 description implies use when order book depth or trade information is needed, providing a clear context. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools like stock_quote or chart_data, nor any exclusions.

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