PnL Leaders

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

Annotations already establish the safe, read-only, idempotent profile; the description adds meaningful behavior: only positions closed in the last 24h, realized-on-the-day PnL, winners and losers included, and position counts plus liquidation flags. 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: the core definition, the contrast with portfolio leaderboards, and the intended question plus access requirement. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool this is nearly complete: it states the metric, time window, leaderboard type, and output highlights (position counts, liquidation flags). Without an output schema, exact return shape is not fully specified, but the description gives enough for an agent to form correct expectations.

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 covers both parameters at 100% with clear descriptions, including the winners/losers cap behavior and toon format toggle. The tool description adds little parameter-level detail beyond this, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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?

Description opens with a specific metric and scope: 'biggest realized winners AND losers ... summed realized PnL on positions CLOSED in the last 24h'. It also explicitly contrasts with portfolio leaderboards, so an agent can distinguish it from similar ranking tools without opening 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 intended query is explicit: 'Use for who made/lost the most money today?' and it flags a Starter tier requirement. It distinguishes from portfolio leaderboards but stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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