get_agent_performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a precise exclusion list of what is NOT returned, which prevents misuse. The tier/capability prefix hints at a paid/authorization requirement, though it's cryptic rather than explanatory.

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?

Core content is two tight sentences that lead with the positive scope then the negative contract. The bracketed capability/tier/API prefix is machine-metadata clutter that adds little for an invoking agent, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably by naming the content domains and the key exclusions. Safety is covered by annotations. The only real gap is the unexplained agentAddress parameter, but overall it's nearly complete for a single-param read tool.

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 single parameter agentAddress has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. The regex pattern conveys format (40-hex address), but nothing explains whose address it is or whether it must be the authenticated agent. With only 1 param at 0% coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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?

States a clear verb ('Review') and enumerates the resource domains: fee-event activity, fees, protocol diversity, and reputation. It also distinguishes itself from outcome-oriented siblings by explicitly excluding fills, PnL, and win rate, so an agent knows this is a fee/reputation tool, not a PnL tool. The bracketed capability/API metadata is noise but doesn't obscure the purpose.

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 negative contract ('does not return fills, trade outcomes, realized PnL, win rate, or slippage') implicitly steers an agent away from using this for PnL/outcomes, which implies alternatives like ledger_realized_pnl exist. However it never names those alternatives or states an explicit 'use X instead' condition, leaving the routing to inference.

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