pulse_trader_daily_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the return fields but does not mention data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or any limitations. For a tool returning daily data, it would be helpful to know the time range covered (e.g., last 30 days) or if it requires authentication.

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 concise sentences: first sentence states purpose and resource, second lists returned fields, third gives usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with the most important 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 simple stats tool with 2 well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what is returned and when to use. However, it could be improved by mentioning the structure of the returned data (e.g., an array of daily objects) or any limits like number of days returned.

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% for 2 parameters. The description adds value by listing the return fields (daily PnL, trade count, win rate, volume) which are not in the schema, helping the agent understand what the tool outputs. The parameter descriptions in schema are adequate, and the description does not repeat them.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'day-by-day performance breakdown for any trader', and lists the returned fields (daily PnL, trade count, win rate, volume). This distinguishes it from siblings like pulse_trader_performance (which likely provides aggregate stats) and pulse_trader_trades (which lists individual trades).

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 provides a usage context: 'Use for deep due diligence and identifying consistency patterns.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, such as when to use pulse_trader_performance instead.

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