pulse_trader_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output data (comparison metrics) but does not discuss side effects, data freshness, access restrictions, or how trend direction is computed. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and provides immediate use context.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the return data (30-day vs all-time) and the trend direction. Minor omissions include the address format requirement (covered in schema) and an explicit statement about the return format being JSON-like.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention the parameters or their roles. The schema already adequately describes address and useToonFormat.

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 action ('Get performance comparison'), specifies the resource ('a trader'), and details the output fields (30-day vs all-time PnL, trade count, win rate, trend direction). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pulse_trader_profile and pulse_trader_daily_stats by focusing on comparative performance over time.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to evaluate if a trader is currently hot or cooling off.' While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, the context from sibling tools makes the intended use clear.

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