Export private agent ledger

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond by explaining that the tool exports paper trading data with virtual funds, includes execution cost details, and clarifies that results are not exchange-fill guarantees. This provides valuable context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 overly long, with detailed execution cost explanations that could be in a separate note. The first sentence is clear, but the following sentences add unnecessary verbosity for a tool description. It should be more concise to aid quick scanning by an AI agent.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), the description adequately covers key aspects: export scope, limitations, privacy, and the simulated nature. The executional nuances are informative but slightly excessive. Overall, the agent can understand what the tool does and its constraints.

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% description coverage for all 8 parameters, including nested 'agentTrace'. The description only mentions 'runId' and 'decisionId' filters, adding no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 specifies that the tool exports up to 1,000 private ledger rows as JSON for the calling API key. It uniquely distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_agent_ledger' (likely a view) and 'export_run_evidence' (different data) by focusing on private ledger export with filters.

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 when to use the tool, such as for exporting private ledger data with optional filters (runId, decisionId) for reproducible evaluation. It also emphasizes that data is private and paper-only. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'get_agent_ledger' or 'export_run_evidence', or mention when not to use it.

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