get_trades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it exposes that the endpoint is public, no credentials needed, it returns paginated results, the cursor is opaque and must not be constructed, and the limit is per-page. This goes far beyond the bare minimum and gives the agent a solid mental model of runtime behavior.

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 about four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output shape, pagination mechanics, and a public-access note. Every sentence contributes useful information with zero fluff; the structure logically progresses from what to how.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a moderately complex pagination contract. The description fully explains the return structure, cursor lifecycle, and public context, which is sufficient for the agent to invoke and interpret results without surprises. Nothing critical is left dangling.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by emphasizing the cursor lifecycle (pass 'previous next_cursor' verbatim until next_cursor is null) and clarifying that limit controls one page, not the total history, which the schema does not explicitly contrast. This subtle extra semantic justifies a 4.

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 starts with a specific, unambiguous verb-resource-scope statement: 'Get recent public trades (prints) for one market, newest first.' It clearly identifies what the tool does, including ordering and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling market-data tools like get_ticker or get_orderbook.

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 clear guidance on pagination usage: how to walk the full history with next_cursor, when to stop, and that limit controls page size not total results. It also states the public access requirement ('no credentials needed'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is well established.

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