Get Market Trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the endpoint is public and does not require credentials, and that trades are 'recent,' which provides some recency context. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, rate limits, response format, or how the 'limit' parameter affects results beyond what the schema states.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences totaling 11 words. It front-loads the action and essential qualifier without any fluff.

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 provides a clear purpose, auth requirement, and recency qualifier, which is adequate for a simple public data fetch tool. It does not describe the return shape or differentiate from get_trade_history explicitly, but given the simple nature and full schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema fully describes both parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description mentions 'for a symbol,' which aligns with the required 'symbol' parameter, but adds no extra semantics.

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: 'Fetch recent public trades for a symbol.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself as 'public' from authenticated trade history tools like get_trade_history.

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 clear usage context by noting the tool is public and requires no credentials, which signals it can be used without authentication. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the public nature implies a distinction from authenticated trade endpoints.

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