Get vfat position performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact metrics returned (APR, ROI, PnL, realized PnL, balance) and the chronological time series nature, which is useful context beyond the 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns...') and packs all essential information without unnecessary words. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

For a read-only tool with a full schema (6 params, all described) and strong annotations, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and output content. It could mention the structure of the time series (e.g., array of objects) but is otherwise complete given the schema and annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as the role of from/to in filtering the time series. It relies entirely on the schema for parameter meaning.

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 'Returns a chronological APR, ROI, PnL, realized PnL and balance time series for one vfat/Sickle NFT position.' This is a specific verb+resource with a clear scope (one position) and distinguishes it from siblings like portfolio summary (multi-position) and position value history (value-only).

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 by specifying 'for one vfat/Sickle NFT position,' which suggests this is for a single position's performance over time. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer distinctions from sibling names.

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