get_live_bot_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the data source priority ('Supabase-first (bot_metrics_live table)') and the fallback behavior ('Falls back to log parser if Supabase unavailable'). It also enumerates the exact metrics returned, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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, consisting of only two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second provides key details (data source, metrics returned, valid IDs, default behavior, fallback). Every piece of information is useful and there is no redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, data source (Supabase table), fallback mechanism, list of allowed bot IDs, default behavior when omitted, and what metrics are returned. Nothing critical is missing.

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% coverage with one parameter described. The description adds the list of valid bot IDs (mnq, cl, mes, nq, alpaca_paper_equities, alpaca_paper_crypto) which are not specified as enums in the schema, and clarifies the default behavior when bot_id is omitted. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 'Get real-time trading metrics for live bots (Tradovate + Alpaca paper)', specifying the exact verb and resource. It lists the returned metrics (daily P&L, win rate, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like get_all_bot_metrics and get_user_bot_metrics which target different scopes.

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 guidance on when to use: it mentions 'Supabase-first' and fallback to log parser, lists valid bot IDs, and explains that omitting bot_id retrieves all bots. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives but the context implies usage for live bots specifically.

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