get_recent_trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It exposes the single-symbol limitation and count bounds, but does not mention ordering, time window, freshness, auth requirements, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The parameter docs are formatted clearly and immediately follow the main sentence.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the necessary invocation details. It lacks guidance on ordering/freshness and when to choose this tool over siblings, but nothing critical prevents a correct call.

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 provides bare property names with no descriptions, so the Args section adds real value: it explains the no-market-prefix ticker format with KRX/US examples and the exact valid range for count. Both parameters become actionable.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('most recent executed trades') for a single symbol, which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_current_price or get_orderbook. The Korean term 체결 adds specificity without confusing the core purpose.

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 gives usage constraints (one symbol per call, count between 1 and 50) but does not state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_candles or get_orderbook, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is implied by the purpose but not explicit.

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