generate_pnl

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

The description says 'Trigger backend PnL generation', an action verb implying server-side state change or job creation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. That mismatch is exactly the kind of conflict the annotations are meant to rule out, so it reads as an annotation contradiction rather than added context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though it is short by omission rather than by disciplined editing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the load, yet it omits return shape, whether generation is synchronous or polled, and the meaning of the three optional parameters. For a four-parameter, zero-coverage tool it is not complete enough.

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% for four parameters, and the description only alludes to walletAddress. It says nothing about what chain accepts (the schema allows string or number), whether startTime/endTime are unix seconds or milliseconds, whether they are optional, or what window is used by default.

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?

Names a specific verb (trigger/generate), resource (PnL), and scope (a wallet), so the agent understands it produces a PnL report for one address. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as hl_list_user_copy_pnl, get_wallet_performance, or get_nof1_analytics, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives even though several siblings return PnL/performance data. The agent is left to infer that this is a generation trigger rather than a read of already-computed PnL.

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