data_get_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies this is a read operation ('fetch') but does not detail pagination, ordering, or rate limits. The mention of 'trade rows' and filtering by wallet/market is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidelines, alternatives, input flexibility, and a common next step. Every sentence contributes meaningfully with no redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (trade rows, filtering by wallet/market), the description adequately covers the purpose and usage. It mentions common next steps, which is helpful. However, it omits ordering details and constraints like date ranges, but the output schema likely compensates for return values.

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 reported as 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that input can include wallet, market, or both depending on what the user knows, and mentions a common next step, providing context beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 verb+resource: 'Fetch trade rows for a wallet or market filter.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Use this tool when the user wants trade-level records rather than current holdings or general wallet activity' and explicitly contrasts with 'get_activity' and Gamma tools.

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 explicit when-to-use context: 'when the user wants trade-level records... for detailed flow analysis and execution history.' It also gives when-not-to-use guidance: 'Prefer Gamma tools when you still need to discover the right market first' and names the alternative tool 'get_activity' for comparison.

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