Get PnL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, covering the main behavioral traits. The description adds no extra context such as data volume, permission requirements, or any side effects. It merely restates the function, offering no additional transparency beyond what annotations already provide.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted language, and it is easy to parse. It is not verbose, though it could arguably be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with two undocumented parameters and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It lacks any context about how to construct a valid request, making it insufficient for effective invocation.

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%, and the description gives no information about the 'timeframe' or 'account_id' parameters. It does not explain allowed values, formats, or how they affect the result. With both parameters undocumented, the description completely fails to compensate, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to fill them.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'account P&L' with a specific detail 'per-symbol breakdown.' It is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_account_summary or get_positions, so it misses a point for sibling distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like 'use when you need profit/loss details' or 'use instead of get_account_summary for P&L.' No exclusions or alternative routing are given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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