Wallet Drawdown Curve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool analyzes closed perp lifecycles, reports MAE and MFE as percentages versus entry, and is not applicable to spot positions.

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 compact and well-ordered: the core function comes first, followed by the exact semantics of the output, then the use case, then the domain restriction. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description clearly communicates the conceptual return value: per-position MAE and MFE percentages for closed perp lifecycles. It does not spell out exact response field names or ordering, but for a read-only analytical tool with fully documented input parameters, this is sufficient context for an agent to understand what it will receive.

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 fully documented by the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but it does contextualize what the returned values mean (MAE/MFE as percentages), which indirectly helps interpret limit/offset usage. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a wallet's per-position drawdown (MAE) and run-up (MFE) curve.' It clarifies exactly what is returned—worst adverse and best favorable price excursions per closed perp lifecycle, as percentages—and explicitly distinguishes itself by noting this is perp-only, so it is not confused with spot-related 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?

The description gives a clear when-to-use rationale: 'Use to judge a trader's pain tolerance and exit timing,' with a concrete framing of the question it answers. It also provides an exclusion boundary, 'Perp-only (spot has no MAE),' though it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly.

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