get_account_pnl

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. It only states that it retrieves P&L data from a subgraph, without mentioning data freshness, output format, potential latency, or any prerequisites. It does not disclose anything beyond the basic read operation, which is a significant gap given the lack of annotations.

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 one concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple with a single parameter and no output schema. The description names the return content ('P&L and performance metrics') but does not specify the exact structure, fields, or response format. Since there is no output schema to rely on, the description could be more explicit about the shape of the return value, but it covers the essential purpose.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter ('account' with description 'Ethereum address of the trader (lowercase)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a trader's P&L and performance metrics'), and identifies the data source ('Beefy P&L subgraph'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_trader_profile and get_trader_usdc_flows by focusing on P&L metrics.

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 when to use this tool (when P&L/performance metrics are needed from the subgraph) but provides no explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives. Given the large list of sibling tools, the absence of explicit 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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