Market Trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and idempotentHint true, so the description focuses on behavioral context, such as providing insights into actual market activity versus orders. It includes example use cases that hint at typical behavior. It could mention data latency or historical depth but is adequate given annotations.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by bullet points and examples. It is well-structured but slightly verbose with redundant examples (e.g., bullet points repeated as separate bulleted use cases). Still clear and organized.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, use cases, and examples thoroughly. No major gaps; it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's value and typical use.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, mentioning only the market symbol and time range implicitly. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 analyzes actual market transactions, specifying the resource (market trades) and using verbs like 'analyze', 'detect', 'calculate'. It differentiates from sibling tools like paradex_orderbook (which shows orders) and paradex_market_summaries (summaries), making the purpose distinct.

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?

Provides explicit usage scenarios (detect large trades, calculate trade size, identify imbalances, etc.), which guides the agent on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for similar purposes (e.g., orderbook for quotes).

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