Trader Trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by describing the recency of the data ('last minutes/hours') and the exact trade fields returned. It does not discuss pagination or output ordering, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden and the description meaningfully supplements it.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then immediately states the value for the user. 'Essential for copy-trading and due diligence' earns its place by conveying practical purpose.

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 fully documented schema, read-only annotations, and the description's coverage of output content and use case, an agent has enough information to call the tool correctly. It could be slightly more complete by noting how this differs from sibling tools like pulse_recent_trades or pulse_trader_profile, but that is not a serious gap.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters including defaults and patterns. The description adds little beyond framing the address and recency, so it does not need to compensate for schema gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get recent trades for a specific wallet address.' It also names the expected content (buy, sell, size, price, PnL), and the phrase 'specific wallet address' differentiates it from market-wide or cohort sibling tools like pulse_recent_trades or pulse_cohort_trades.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to inspect one trader's recent activity for copy-trading and due diligence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so there is no exclusion guidance, but the intended use is evident.

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