Get PnL by Market

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict that. It adds a small amount of context by specifying 'realized' P&L and grouping by market, but does not disclose additional behaviors like return format, pagination, or time range. This meets the baseline for annotations but offers limited extra transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value. It does state the output is a breakdown of realized P&L grouped by market, which gives a reasonable idea of the result shape. For a simple no-parameter read-only tool, this is fairly complete, though it could mention time range or filtering, which are not applicable here.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema provides no fields to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds sufficient context about what the output will contain (realized P&L per market), so there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'breakdown of realized P&L grouped by each market.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pnl_by_trader (by trader) and get_pnl_history (history over time) by specifying the market grouping.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need P&L by market) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance, though the market grouping is clear enough to differentiate from sibling tools.

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