Reference pass rates per archetype

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses determinism, caching, cheap invocation, the seed and path count, the reference archetype assumptions, returned metrics including confidence intervals and provenance, and the caveat that inferred fields must be relayed. It also warns that the firm's page is authoritative and to check lastVerified.

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 long and dense, but it front-loads the core purpose and scope before caveats and alternatives. Most of the detail is relevant to selecting, invoking, and interpreting the tool correctly, so the verbosity is justified even though a tighter structure could improve readability.

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 complex probabilistic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers inputs, outputs, assumptions, caching, expected costs, limitations, and alternative tools. An agent should be able to call it correctly and interpret the results without additional information.

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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including omitted challengeId behavior. The description adds context about per-challenge and per-archetype computation but does not materially improve on the schema's parameter documentation, so the 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 names a specific operation: compute reference challenge pass rates per challenge and per archetype from the directory's encoded rules. It distinguishes itself from a ranking and from user-specific simulation tools, and the scope is clear enough to tell it apart from siblings like propfirms_simulate.

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?

It explicitly states these are reference odds, not the user's personal odds, and directs to propfirms_simulate or propfirms_simulate_trades for personal statistics. It also names propfirms_get and propfirms_search_offers as authoritative sources for current rules and live offers, providing strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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