get_rithmic_live_pnl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, side-effect-free read. The description adds value by specifying that the data is real-time and listing the returned fields (open_pnl, closed_pnl, etc.), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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: the first states the purpose and data source, the second lists the returned fields and aggregate summary. Every sentence is essential, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values by naming four key fields and an aggregate summary. However, it could be slightly more complete by detailing the structure of the aggregate summary, such as whether it's a combined total or per-account breakdown.

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 are no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage). The description need not explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter info but does not need to.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('real-time P&L for all prop firm accounts'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_rithmic_live_accounts' or 'get_my_realized_pnl' by focusing on P&L across all accounts.

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 states the tool retrieves P&L for all prop firm accounts, implying it's the broadest option. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like 'get_my_realized_pnl' for individual account data, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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