Get equity curve

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full burden. It explains the output format (date, usdValue), parameter default, and includes a disclaimer 'Not financial advice.' However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, though it is implied by context.

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 plus a one-line note, front-loading the core purpose. It wastes no words and is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers purpose, output format, parameter details, and usage context (paper trading only, virtual funds). It is complete for its complexity.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter 'days' with min/max constraints. The description adds the default value (30) and repeats the range, which adds value over the schema alone.

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 tool returns a 'Daily wallet equity time series ({date, usdValue})' for the paper account, specifying the purpose as 'reviewing performance over time and narrating results.' This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_performance or get_portfolio.

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 explicitly states 'Paper trading only' and 'virtual funds (50,000 mUSD),' indicating when to use this tool versus real account tools. It provides context for performance review but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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