pulse_trader_lifecycle_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the 90-day rolling window and enumerates all returned statistics (wins, losses, PnL, hold duration, fees, etc.), but does not explicitly state permissions, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation, though 'Get' implies it.

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 three well-structured sentences: the first lists outputs, the second links to a sibling tool, and the third gives the use case. It is front-loaded with the main action and wastes no 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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by listing all output metrics and the rolling window. However, it does not explain the return format (toon vs. JSON), which is left to the schema.

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?

All 5 parameters are fully described in the input schema (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Get a wallet's aggregate position-lifecycle stats' and lists specific metrics (total/closed/open count, wins, losses, liquidations, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pulse_trader_lifecycles which returns individual lifecycles.

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 advises 'Use to size up a trader's position-level performance in one call,' providing clear context for when to use. It also notes the shared 90-day window with pulse_trader_lifecycles, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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