pulse_trader_lifecycles

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

Describes reconstructed nature from on-chain fills, output fields, and defaults/constraints (90-day window, spot excluded). With no annotations, description adequately covers safety profile (read-only implied) and behavioral context.

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 sentences front-loaded with action and key details. No redundancy, every sentence adds value (what it returns, comparison to sibling, use case).

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?

Covers output fields, time window, filtering defaults, and purpose. Lacks explanation of pagination or sorting order, but schema handles pagination parameters. Reasonably complete for a read tool with well-documented 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?

Schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds context for includeSpot (default exclusion of spot pairs) and mentions default status 'closed' indirectly through example fields. Adds slight value beyond 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'wallet's position lifecycle history', lists output fields (VWAP, PnL, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tool 'closed-positions' by noting it returns full lifecycle data.

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?

Explicitly recommends use for 'deep position-level due diligence and timing analysis' and notes defaults (90-day window, spot excluded). Does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools beyond the 'Richer than closed-positions' hint.

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