pulse_trader_closed_position_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool reads from a legacy table and is superseded, but does not explicitly state side effects or permissions. However, it is implied to be a read-only statistical query. Some behavioral details like error handling or rate limits are missing.

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 defines the purpose, the second provides usage guidance and context. Efficient, no fluff, and front-loaded with the key action.

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 lacking an output schema, the description lists the specific stats returned (avg hold duration, win rate, etc.), which sets clear expectations. It also provides context about the legacy table and superseding tool. For a stats tool with good sibling differentiation, this is fairly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'address' pattern and 'useToonFormat' default).

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 'Aggregate stats for a wallet's closed positions' listing specific metrics (avg hold duration, win rate, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pulse_trader_lifecycle_summary by noting it is superseded and reads from a legacy table.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer pulse_trader_lifecycle_summary; kept for backward compatibility.' This tells the agent when to use it vs. the alternative, and explains the reason (legacy vs. corrected table).

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