Trader Token Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so no contradiction exists. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the returned breakdown dimensions and framing the tool as an edge-analysis view. No hidden side effects or surprising behaviors are implied.

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 two efficient sentences: the first states action and scope, the second lists output fields and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool title or schema.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the returned dimensions and the intended analytical use. Minor gaps such as the P&L time period or realized-versus-unrealized distinction are unspecified, but the annotations and fully documented parameters make the tool safely callable as described.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema, including the address pattern and useToonFormat default/effect, so the description does not need to add much. It implicitly reinforces that 'address' refers to any trader, but it adds no parameter-level detail beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get token-by-token P&L breakdown for any trader.' It names the exact output dimensions (coins traded, PnL per coin, win rate per coin, volume per coin) and gives a concrete use-case example, making it distinguishable from sibling trader-level tools.

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?

It clearly states the intended use case ('understand a trader's edge') and says it works 'for any trader,' so an agent knows when to select it for per-coin P&L analysis. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough among the many trader-related sibling tools.

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