get_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses key traits: computation is FIFO-matched, amounts are in native currency, and mixed-currency totals are approximate. It also implicitly indicates a read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, mention any rate limits, or clarify whether the 'top positions' are sorted by value or quantity. The currency and approximation notes add valuable transparency beyond a simple 'get stats'.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then specifies the exact metrics. The trailing note about currency handling is relevant and concise. There is no filler or repetition. Every clause adds value.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of what the tool returns. It lists all major categories of computed stats and clarifies the currency handling. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., whether it's a single object or a list) and whether any filtering is possible. For a stateless aggregation tool, this is nearly complete, but not perfectly exhaustive.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description complements the schema by explaining what the output covers. No further parameter information is required.

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 explicitly states the resource ('performance stats across the whole portfolio') and enumerates the specific aggregates returned (total equity, equity by broker, top positions, FIFO-matched trade stats, per-symbol breakdown). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_positions and get_trades, which focus on raw data rather than computed summary metrics.

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?

While the description makes the tool's purpose clear, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The usage context is implied as 'for aggregated portfolio stats', but there is no direct guidance on when get_stats should be preferred over get_positions or get_trades. Since the tool takes no parameters, the lack of alternatives guidance is a minor gap.

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