futures_recent_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get recent futures trades' and does not mention that it is a read-only operation, does not require authentication (implied), or any rate limits. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects beyond the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. It is one sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key details without losing conciseness, thus a 4 rather than 5.

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 no output schema and low complexity, the description should at least mention what data is returned (e.g., list of recent trades with price, qty, time). It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's output or behavior beyond parameter input.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get recent futures trades' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (recent futures trades). It distinguishes from siblings like futures_klines (historical candles) and futures_order_book (order depth). However, it could be more specific about what 'recent' means (e.g., last 500 trades) and does not explicitly contrast with similar tools.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when to avoid using it. Sibling tools cover related data (e.g., klines, ticker), but the description lacks explicit selection criteria.

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