ultrade_market_last_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get last trades' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify whether authentication is required, rate limits apply, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of trades, timestamps, prices). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, though it does not contradict any 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?

The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, this brevity borders on under-specification, as it sacrifices clarity and completeness for conciseness. While it avoids waste, it could benefit from slightly more detail to enhance utility without becoming verbose.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral aspects like pagination or data freshness. With no output schema and minimal description, the agent lacks sufficient context to understand what the tool returns or how to interpret results, making it inadequate for effective 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'symbol' and 'limit' parameters, including constraints like the 100 maximum. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or usage tips. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description input.

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 'Get last trades' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ultrade_market_last_trades', providing minimal additional meaning. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'last trades', but lacks specificity about what 'last trades' entails (e.g., recent transactions, market data) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'ultrade_market_history' or 'ultrade_wallet_trades', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools such as 'ultrade_market_history' (which might overlap) or 'ultrade_wallet_trades' (which could be user-specific). This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction for selection.

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