list_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the sort order but says nothing about whether the result is paginated, how start/end constrain the window, defaults, or whether it is a pure read — significant gaps for a listing tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is appropriately tight, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than efficient concision.

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?

With three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing what a 'round trip' contains and how the window parameters behave. It is not complete enough for a filtered list tool of this shape.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%: 'start', 'end', and 'limit' have no documentation anywhere, and the description never mentions them. The ordering hint weakly implies a limit/recent-window concept, but the date-range semantics of start/end are entirely absent.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List reconstructed round trips') and adds a useful ordering detail ('most recent first'). It is clearly distinct from get_stats, find_leaks, and compare_periods, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives (e.g., find_leaks for anomalies, get_stats for aggregates). The only guidance is implicit in the word 'trades' and the ordering note, which is not enough to route an agent reliably.

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