crypto_accounting__realized_gain_fifo

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

The description offers only a minimal hint about input structure (lots in acquisition order) but does not disclose computational behavior, return format, or any side effects (e.g., mutability). With no annotations, the agent is left largely uninformed about how the tool behaves beyond its name.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence), which is efficient but comes at the cost of missing critical information. It could be longer to be more useful.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, and only partial description of one of three parameters, the description is insufficient for an AI agent to confidently use the tool correctly. It lacks details on expected input formats, return value, and prerequisites.

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?

Only the 'lots' parameter is partially described (as containing units and unit_cost in acquisition order). The 'sale_price' and 'units_sold' parameters are not explained at all, despite 0% schema description coverage. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 name explicitly includes 'realized_gain_fifo' and the description mentions 'lots: (units, unit_cost) in acquisition order,' which together strongly imply that this tool computes realized gains using the FIFO method. However, the description does not explicitly state the tool's output or confirm the calculation, leaving some ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like crypto_accounting__cost_less_impairment or fair_value_remeasurement. The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios or alternatives.

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