get_my_realized_pnl

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral context: results are segregated with a legal disclaimer, and authentication is required. It elaborates on the return structure and compliance, which annotations alone do not 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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key feature (segregation) in the first sentence. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating function, legal disclaimer, and requirement. No fluff.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides adequate context: the output includes separate live and paper P&L with a legal disclaimer. It could mention output format, but the key behavioral aspects are covered.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter details because none exist. Baseline score of 4 applies as there is no need for additional param info.

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 it returns the user's realized P&L with strict segregation of live and paper results. It uses specific language ('LIVE', 'PAPER', 'STRICTLY segregated') and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on realized P&L segregation.

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 explains when to use the tool (to get realized P&L with segregation) and includes a prerequisite (requires ALGOCHAINS_SUBSCRIBER_KEY). It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection.

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