pulse_trader_token_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately describes the tool as a read operation returning token-level P&L, win rate, and volume. No destructive behavior is implied, and the example clarifies output interpretation. However, it does not mention potential rate limits or authorization requirements.

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?

Two sentences: first defines function and outputs, second provides a usage example. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what it does and why. It could mention the return format more explicitly, but the useToonFormat parameter covers that. Sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, with both parameters (address, useToonFormat) well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'token-by-token P&L breakdown for any trader'. It details the metrics (PnL per coin, win rate, volume), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on aggregate trader stats or cohort 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?

The description provides a clear use case: 'Use to understand a trader's edge' with a concrete example. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined and the context from siblings implies this is for per-token granularity versus overall performance.

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