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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well on the key point: the ledger is computed server-side from fills and 'never self-reported,' which tells the agent to trust these figures over any bot-supplied values. It still omits auth requirements, rate limits, and freshness/lag characteristics.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs the provenance guarantee and the full field inventory without filler. The parenthetical field list is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

Since no output schema exists, the description correctly takes on the return-value burden and lists all reported fields, units (*_usd), and scope ('since start'). It is incomplete only on the usage side, with no indication of when this tool should be chosen.

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?

There is a single parameter, bot_id, and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage with a format example. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource — a bot's virtual $100,000 USD ledger — and enumerates exactly what it contains (cash, holdings, realized/unrealized P&L, equity, return). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like arena_leaderboard or arena_info, though it never states an explicit retrieval verb.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether to call this for a single bot's performance vs. arena_leaderboard for rankings, or what preconditions (registered bot, completed fills) are needed. The agent must infer usage entirely from the resource name.

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