pulse_pnl_leaders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It correctly identifies that this involves realized PnL on closed positions (mutating? No, it's a read operation) and includes position counts and liquidation flags. However, it doesn't disclose whether pagination applies or what happens if no positions are closed in 24h. Returns are also not described, but with no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 highly concise, with three informative sentences. The first sentence fronts the core purpose, the second clarifies the time window and differentiation from similar tools, and the third provides a usage example. No wasted words.

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 low complexity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is almost complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage window, and sibling distinction. The only minor omission is a brief note on what happens if no positions are closed (empty result), but this is generally understood.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by implying that both winners and losers are capped by 'limit', and the default and max/min values are in the schema. The description doesn't explicitly mention the parameters, but the schema is sufficient, and the useToonFormat parameter is well-documented.

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 uses specific verbs ('realized winners AND losers') and clarifies the resource ('wallets ranked by summed realized PnL on positions CLOSED in the last 24h'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from portfolio leaderboards that rank account value over longer windows, addressing the sibling tool pulse_leaderboard.

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 clearly states when to use this tool ('who made/lost the most money today?') and distinguishes it from portfolio leaderboards. It does not explicitly list when NOT to use it or provide alternative sibling tools, but the context is clear enough.

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