pulse_cohort_performance_daily

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool returns historical daily stats and has a range limit, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, potential side effects (none expected), or data volume considerations. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 long, front-loaded with the action and returns, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains the return values (PnL, volume, trade counts, active trader counts per tier) and the time scope. It is fairly complete, though it could clarify the definition of 'cohorts' or 'tiers' and whether the data is aggregated per day. Still, it covers the essential context.

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, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by noting the max range as 30 days, which relates to the 'since' parameter, but it does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what is already in the schema.

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 action ('Get historical daily performance statistics') and specifies the resource ('all trader cohorts') and the returned metrics (PnL, volume, trade counts, active trader counts per tier). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pulse_cohort_summary or pulse_cohort_positions by focusing on daily performance across all cohorts.

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 provides a clear use case: 'track the consistency and profitability of different groups over time.' It also mentions a constraint (max range 30 days). However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or offer specific alternatives among siblings, though the context is implicit.

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