trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are individual ticks with four fields, which is useful context. However, it says nothing about result truncation (limit defaults to 200, capped at 5000), ordering semantics, or behavior when the requested date has no data.

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?

Two compact clauses with zero waste; the resource and returned fields are front-loaded and the sibling redirect follows immediately. The Persian term (ریز معاملات) is a justified disambiguation aid for symbol/domain vocabulary.

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?

With seven parameters, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters (limit, newest_first), the description carries a fair amount of burden. It partially compensates by describing the returned fields, but an agent cannot tell whether a default call returns a truncated sample or the full day's ticks, which matters for correct interpretation.

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 coverage is 71%, slightly below the high-coverage baseline, so the description ideally should compensate more. 'Filter by time and size' maps to from_time/to_time/min_volume but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, and limit, newest_first and symbol receive no explanation in either place (limit and newest_first have no schema description at all).

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 identifies the resource precisely as raw tick-by-tick trades and enumerates the returned fields (time, price, volume, value), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It also names the sibling it is not (trade_summary), making the boundary clear. The only weakness is the absence of an explicit verb such as 'retrieve/list'.

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?

'Filter by time and size; prefer trade_summary for analysis' gives a clear routing rule to an alternative tool for the aggregation case. It stops short of stating the positive trigger (when raw ticks are actually required) or excluding other siblings like price_history or order_book_history, leaving some inference to the agent.

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