fetchTrades

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation. However, it adds no further behavioral details such as pagination limits, rate limits, or the meaning of 'raw' versus a compact summary (referenced by the verbose parameter).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word is necessary and the verb 'Fetch' immediately conveys the action.

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 lacks an explanation of the return format (no output schema) and does not elaborate on the distinction between 'raw' and compact responses. With 6 parameters and many sibling tools, more context on common use cases or pagination is needed.

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 description coverage is 83% (5 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description itself does not add value beyond the schema; notably, outcomeId lacks a schema description, and the description does not clarify it. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage but no additional semantic contribution.

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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'raw trade history for a specific outcome', distinguishing it from siblings like fetchMyTrades (own trades) and fetchMarket (market info). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 by stating 'raw trade history', but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetchMarketMatches or fetchMyTrades. No when-not or alternative tool names are provided.

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