Trader Position Lifecycles

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantive non-obvious behavior: a 90-day rolling window (closed within 90 days plus open ones), an API limitation where the table's first day is not exposed, spot exclusion by default, and a pointer to data_coverage. This is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and returned fields, then appends scope caveats and a usage cue. Dense but each clause carries information; no filler sentences, though the single dense paragraph could be split for scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned lifecycle fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. Coverage of pagination/ordering and the distinction from other lifecycle-focused siblings is lighter, but the definition is otherwise sufficient to call the tool.

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 parameters are already documented (coin prefix notation, status enum, includeSpot, includeCensored, toon format). The description only restates the spot-exclusion default, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a wallet's position lifecycle history') and enumerates the reconstructed fields (entry/exit VWAP, peak size, hold duration, realized PnL, fees). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling pulse_trader_closed_positions with 'Richer than closed-positions: each row is a full position lifecycle,' so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear intended context ('Use for deep position-level due diligence and timing analysis') and implies a comparison against closed-positions. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or how to choose against near-neighbors like pulse_lifecycles_recent or pulse_trader_lifecycle_summary, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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