fomo_get_pnl_equity_series

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful detail (timestamp is ISO start-of-window) but does not state read-only behavior, data granularity, ordering, auth requirements, or what the series represents.

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 efficiently short with no filler. The timestamp clarification earns its place. It is not front-loaded with a clear verb phrase, but overall it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain what the PnL/equity series represents, how it is scoped by userId, or what format the result takes. The only concrete detail is the timestamp format.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It only clarifies timestamp format (ISO start-of-window); userId is left entirely unexplained. One of two parameters gains semantics, but the other is completely vague.

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 phrase 'PnL/equity series' identifies the resource but is a fragment rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It is distinguishable from siblings by subject matter, but it doesn't explicitly say it fetches/returns a series for a given user.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like fomo_trading_activity, fomo_get_user_swaps, or fomo_get_balances. The description provides no context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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