get_track_record

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states calls are timestamped and publicly verifiable, adding useful context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits.

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?

Single sentence with key metrics plus a second sentence on verifiability. No unnecessary words; front-loads essential information.

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?

Zero parameters make this tool simple. An output schema exists, and the description lists all major return fields. For a read-only tracking tool, this is comprehensive.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters and is fully covered (100%). With no params, the description's addition of the returned metrics adds value without needing parameter details. Baseline 4 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the Octodamus oracle track record and lists specific metrics (total calls, win rate, P&L, Sharpe ratio, best/worst calls). This distinguishes it from siblings like ask_oracle (makes predictions) or get_active_calls (current open calls).

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 implies usage for viewing historical performance but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., use for assessing reliability, not for current signal). No exclusions or scenarios provided.

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