Max Pain Events

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it returns position, entry/MAE/exit prices, realized PnL, and max drawdown %, and filters to material positions via minPnl. The phrase 'bounded drawdowns' is slightly vague, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The 'diamond hands' phrasing adds useful interpretive color without padding, and every sentence contributes either selection criteria or return-value information.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the selection concept, return fields, and key filters, which is largely sufficient. A small gap is that 'bounded drawdowns' is not fully precise about whether it refers to the minimum drawdown threshold or an upper bound, and the sort order implied by 'biggest' is not explicitly stated.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description restates the minPnl concept and alludes to drawdown filtering, but does not meaningfully extend the parameter documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find the biggest survived drawdowns' and then precisely defines what counts as one: closed perp positions that went deeply underwater (high MAE) yet still closed in profit. This clear definition differentiates the tool from related sibling tools like pulse_survivors or pulse_anti_survivors without needing to read their schemas.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent wants 'diamond hands' winners that nearly blew up but still closed profitably. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the unique criteria and filter mentions make the intended use reasonably inferable.

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