get_recent_trades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful constraints: no market prefix, accepted count range 1-50, and single-symbol-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, describe the response shape, or mention any authentication/rate-limit implications.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a short Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 covers both parameters and key invocation constraints, which is adequate for basic use. But because there is no output schema or annotations, it would benefit from a note about the returned trade fields or ordering, and possibly a pointer to sibling tools such as get_current_price or get_orderbook.

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 only provides bare property names, so the description compensates well. It explains symbol format with concrete examples ('005930', 'AAPL'), states that no market prefix is used, emphasizes one-symbol limit, and defines count as between 1 and 50. This is genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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 opens with a clear action and resource: 'Get the most recent executed trades (체결) for a single symbol.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_current_price or get_orderbook by the data type, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.

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 first sentence and parameter notes provide clear context for when to use the tool: when recent executed trades for a single symbol are needed. It also states the constraint that only one symbol is accepted per call. However, it does not mention any sibling alternatives or exclusions such as 'use get_orderbook instead.'

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