PCM

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it retrieves 'recent trades' but doesn't disclose what 'recent' means (e.g., last hour, last 100 trades), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how data is returned (e.g., sorted, paginated). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external APIs.

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 a single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get recent trades') and efficiently specifies the scope ('for a trading pair'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what 'recent' means, how trades are ordered, whether there are limitations (e.g., max 'limit'), or what the output structure looks like. Given the complexity of financial data retrieval, this leaves too much unspecified.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'exchange' and 'symbol' must be compatible) or provide examples beyond the schema's basic descriptions. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('recent trades for a trading pair'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get-ohlcv' or 'get-orderbook' which also retrieve market data, but the specific focus on trades is clear enough for basic distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-ohlcv' for historical price data or 'get-orderbook' for depth information. It mentions 'recent trades' but doesn't specify timeframes or use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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