day_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Although it implies a read operation ('Gets'), it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The listed return fields are helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 consists of two short, focused sentences. Every word adds value: the first identifies the action and resource, the second enumerates return fields. No redundancy or filler.

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 tool has no parameters and the output schema presumably describes the return structure, the description adequately summarizes the key fields (day trade count, remaining day trades, PDT status, buying power). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's output without needing to inspect the schema. However, it does not mention possible error conditions or edge cases.

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, and the input schema is empty. Per the guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description correctly avoids adding extraneous parameter information since there are none to document.

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 'Gets pattern day trading information and tracking', specifying the resource (PDT info) and action (GET). It lists specific return fields, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'schwab_get_day_trades' beyond the name, so it misses explicit 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 any prerequisites, context, or alternative tools (e.g., account_info for general account details). Users are left to infer usage from the name alone.

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