list_trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden well by declaring the tool read-only, stating that it exposes no secrets and has no order-flow control, and noting that invalid values fail with a validation error. It also describes paging defaults and the total count semantics, though it does not discuss authentication or rate limits.

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 dense but appropriate for a 14-parameter list tool: it front-loads the return shape and read-only nature, then covers filters, sorting, and paging without obvious filler. Every sentence conveys operational information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 absence of annotations, 14 parameters, and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool confidently. It covers return paging, total counts before paging, filter semantics, sort columns, default and maximum limits, and validation failure behavior.

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?

Although schema coverage is already 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by grouping filters and clarifying that account/assets use text match while id is exact, side is buy|sell, and price/quantity/lockPrice are decimal ranges. It also explains the venue filter modes and enumerates the valid sort columns, which the schema explicitly defers to the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns one page of trades, with each row corresponding to the REST trade list row. It also distinguishes the operation as read-only and explicitly excludes order-flow control, which lets an agent identify it as a query tool rather than an order-submission sibling.

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 implies usage through its filter list and read-only framing, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as list_orders or get_order. It gives no exclusions or alternative-routing guidance, so the agent must infer the use case.

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