pulse_hour_profitability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that data is by UTC hour and lists output fields, but omits details like date range scope, data recency, or if aggregation is over all time. The optional boolean parameter is mentioned but behaviorally the tool seems read-only; no destructive hints are given.

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: the first states purpose and output fields, the second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (per-hour data with listed metrics). It does not specify the exact JSON format or whether all 24 hours are always present, but it is fairly complete for a simple heatmap tool.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter, and the tool description repeats the schema description without adding extra meaning. Thus, the description adds no value beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 provides a global PnL heatmap by UTC hour, listing the specific fields returned (lifecycle count, total PnL, avg PnL, wins, losses). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like trade outcomes or volume.

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 provides a use case: 'Use for 'what time of day is most profitable to close?' / session-bias analysis.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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