get_trades

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds the count limit ('count: max 50') and clarifies 'executed trades' (체결 내역), indicating it excludes pending orders. However, it does not specify the time window for 'recent' or pagination behavior.

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 sentence plus a fragment, front-loaded with the primary action. It is concise and every word adds value.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a simple read-only tool. It mentions the key constraint (count max 50), but 'recent' is vague and could benefit from a time range definition. Overall adequate.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds a constraint for `count` (max 50) but does not explain that `count` is optional or what `symbol` should look like. This partially compensates for the schema, but leaves some burden on the agent.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves recent executed trades for a symbol, using both English and Korean (체결 내역) to clarify executed trades, distinguishing it from get_orders (order status) and get_candles (price 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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_orders. The purpose is clear but no exclusion criteria or alternative references are given, so it falls under implied usage.

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