Get my performance

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: paper trading with virtual funds, closed trades only, execution details (taker fees, slippage, etc.), and that result includes execution model info. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and key constraints. It includes detailed execution policy information that adds value but may be more verbose than necessary. Overall well-structured.

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 single optional parameter and the presence of an output schema (not provided), the description thoroughly explains the tool's behavior, return data (total + per-venue PnL, trade counts, win rate), and constraints (closed trades, paper trading). It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter 'agentTrace'. The description does not mention the parameter, but the schema fully documents it. With high coverage, baseline is 3.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the calling key's own realized performance, including total and per-venue realized PnL, trade count, win/loss/neutral counts, and win rate. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_my_trades' and 'get_positions' by focusing on realized performance of closed trades and paper trading.

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 clarifies that the tool is for closed trades only ('scorecard for this agent') and paper trading only ('virtual funds'). It provides context for when to use it but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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