list_futures_trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves trades but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, return format, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is too minimal to adequately inform an agent about behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (14 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details about parameter usage, behavioral context, and output expectations, making it inadequate for an agent to effectively use this tool without additional information.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 14 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'time range' and 'futures contract', which loosely relates to parameters like 'ticker' and timestamp fields, but it fails to explain the purpose of most parameters (e.g., 'limit', 'sort', 'params', various comparison operators). This does not compensate for the low schema 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 clearly states the action ('Get trades') and resource ('for a futures contract') with a scope ('in a given time range'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_trades' or 'list_futures_aggregates', which might have overlapping functionality.

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. There are many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_trades', 'list_futures_aggregates') that might serve similar purposes, but the description offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.

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