get_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'public data' which hints at read-only access, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (beyond parameters), or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The example is helpful but could be more integrated. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from filtering details).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a read operation. It covers the purpose and basic filtering, but lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with 4 parameters and public data access, it should provide more context about what 'trade history' entails and how results are structured.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by 'user address and/or market conditionId' and providing an example, but doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format details or usage nuances). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Get trade history (public data)' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('trade history'), and clarifies it's public data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_closed_positions' or 'get_positions', which might overlap in functionality.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning filtering options ('Filter by user address and/or market conditionId from list_markets') and includes an example. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_closed_positions' or 'get_positions', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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