ledger_realized_pnl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what the summary contains (aggregate totals vs. per-asset breakdown), the time granularity, or what happens when start/end are omitted.

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?

Only one real sentence, which is efficient, but it is preceded by a bracketed internal-metadata prefix (capability tier, API path, authority path) that occupies the front-loaded position and offers no selection or invocation value to an agent.

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 and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of semantics for a read-only aggregation tool, yet it omits what is returned, the units/currency of any PnL, and the default date window. An agent cannot confidently construct a call or interpret the result.

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% for three parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not. "Over a date range" gestures at start/end but gives no format, timezone, inclusivity, or default-window behavior, and says nothing at all about the required agentAddress.

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 states a verb and resource ("Summarize recorded spot and futures agent activity over a date range"), but it never mentions PnL, which is the tool's entire name — an agent searching for realized profit/loss would not recognize it. It also fails to distinguish the tool from the sibling get_agent_activity, which sounds like the same thing.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_agent_activity or ledger_tax_export, both of which overlap heavily with "summarize agent activity." No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing guidance.

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