pulse_lifecycle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns trade fills with fields like timestamp, side, size, price, PnL, fee, tx hash, joined from the trades table within the open->close window. This gives insight into behavior and data sources. However, it does not mention edge cases (e.g., if ID not found) or performance implications, which prevents a perfect score.

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 with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core function and output, and the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return data (trade fills) and usage workflow. Missing details like pagination or error handling are minor and not critical for this simple lookup.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds context by mentioning the numeric ID comes from 'pulse_trader_lifecycles' and that toon format is compact. However, it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema—e.g., explaining what 'toon format' means—so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Look up one position lifecycle by its numeric ID', specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling 'pulse_trader_lifecycles' by indicating it is for drilling into a single position after obtaining a list. The verb 'look up' is specific and unambiguous.

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 says 'Use after pulse_trader_lifecycles to drill into exactly how a single position was built and unwound', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling. This establishes a workflow context, satisfying the guidelines dimension.

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