get_trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool is a read-only inquiry (조회) scoped to the day's recent executions, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose ordering, pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral nuances beyond the basic scope.

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, front-loaded sentence in Korean that states the tool's purpose with no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise and well-structured.

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 is simple, but the description and lack of output schema leave unanswered what the returned trades contain (e.g., price, volume, timestamp). Additionally, the absence of usage guidance makes it less complete when considering the large set of sibling market data tools.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters: symbol with an example and count with default and maximum values. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves today's recent trade execution history for a stock, using the specific verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource '체결 내역' (trade executions). It distinguishes itself from market data siblings like get_orderbook, get_candles, and get_prices by focusing on executed trades, and from get_trade_log which is the user's own trade log.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions, comparisons, or context about preferred scenarios, making it inadequate for tool selection among the many market data siblings.

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