get_trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses an access restriction ('Pro+ plan'), the real-time nature ('live'), and a critical input constraint ('exact exchange symbol'). While it doesn't address rate limits or error handling, these are less critical for a read-only trade tape tool, and the description offers meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 three direct sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by use-case and constraint. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 covers the essential context: purpose, target audience (Saudi stocks), plan requirement, output composition (individual executions and summary), and a key usage prerequisite. An output schema exists, so detailed return fields are documented elsewhere. Minor gaps include no mention of rate limits or potential errors, but overall the description is sufficient for tool selection.

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 descriptions already provide full coverage for both parameters, including the exact-symbol requirement and an example ('2222'). The main description repeats 'Requires exact exchange symbol' but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, it does not elevate above the baseline.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent live trade prints for a Saudi stock'), and elaborates with 'trade tape: individual executions with price, quantity, value'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote, which provides a single price snapshot, and get_depth, which might show order book depth.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for the trade tape', providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It also highlights a key prerequisite ('Requires exact exchange symbol'), guiding the agent to resolve user-provided company names first. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclude cases where other tools would be more appropriate.

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