Get PnL by Trader

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds context about the data being 'realized P&L' and grouped by trader, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like response format, pagination, or any data scoping limitations. With annotations covering the safety profile, this level of detail is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It contains no filler words or unnecessary details, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns (a breakdown of realized P&L grouped by trader) without needing to cover input parameters. It does not describe the exact output format, but this is not heavily required given the simplicity of the operation.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds semantic context about what the output represents (grouped P&L), but there are no parameter details to elaborate on, so no additional information is needed.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('breakdown of realized P&L') and specifies the grouping dimension ('by each trader you copy'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_pnl_by_market' by explicitly stating the grouping key, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the use case: when you need P&L broken down per trader in your copy portfolio. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'get_pnl_by_market'), but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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