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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does this well: it reveals that this is paper trading rather than live capital, that it updates daily, that strategies are deterministic and rule-based, and that losses are never hidden. This gives the agent important context about trustworthiness and limitations.

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, front-loads the core resource identity, and then packs the most useful details — metrics, update cadence, paper-trading nature, and when to use it — without wasted words.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter read-only lookup tool, this description is complete: it names the tracked entities, the metrics included, the update frequency, and the credibility caveat. No output schema exists, but the described content is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and set expectations for the response.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and parameter documentation is not needed. The description sufficiently explains what the returned resource contains, so this meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies a specific resource — Liquid State's public paper-strategy track record — and states exactly what data it contains (return %, max drawdown %, days live). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_market_overview or get_briefs, which concern broader market or content resources.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user asks whether Liquid State's calls or strategies actually work, or wants a verifiable track record rather than a claim. It gives clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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